Ilibrary of congress. 



\^>H..2..s..H.^ 



UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, f 



E V I T. S 



OF 



DR. i[owJ':ll's book 



ON THE 



"EVILS OF JNFANT YAVTim:^ 



% ;{uijijto 



BY IlEV. E. McMTLLAN 



FiitsT i'[;niJsni:T> in the ttctte baptist. 



EDITKl) JiY A. KKWTOiX, 




NEW YORK: 
PUia.hSITKD I5Y M. W. DODD, 

UJIUK CUUKCH ClIArEL, CI'IY II A LI, SWI ARE. 

1855 ' />^ 



Li 



iV 



[ 



^WADHiNGTON 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in tiie year 1854, by 
M. W. DODD, 

In the Clerk's Office for the Southern District of New York. 



STEREOTYPED BY 

THOMAS B. SMITH, 
216 William St., N. Y. 



PREFACE. 

This Review of Howell's Evils of Infant Baptism 
was first publishedj in consecutive numbers, in the 
True Baptist. It was written by the Rev. E. 
McMillan, of Grallatin, Tennessee. It is believed 
to be richly worthy to appear in this more accept- 
able and permanent form, and is now offered to the 
friends of truth as a most satisfactory and unanswer- 
able refutation of the pretences of the objectors to 

Infant Baptism. 

The Editor. 



INTRODUCTION. 

The volume^ entitled, '' The Evils of Infant 
Baptism," was written by one of the ablest ministers 
in " the Southern Baptist Church," and it is issued 
by two public societies approved and supported by 
the denomination. We are well certified by these 
facts that the work is approved by the Immersionist 
church, and that it is the ablest they can produce on 
the subject upon which it treats. We are happy here 
to meet the whole strength of the denomination, and 
to be able to measure the length, breadth, depth, 
and height of the argument against infant baptism. 

We do not admire the style in which the work is 
written. It is easy and plain ; but there is a vast 

* The Evils of Infant Baptism, by Robert Boyte C. 
Howell, D.D., (pastor of the Second Baptist Church in 
Richmond, Va.) Third edition. Charleston, S. C. : South- 
ern Baptist Publication Society. Richmond, Va. : Baptist 
Sunday School and Publication Society. A. D. 1852. 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

deal of repetition, and frequently the author betrays 
great carelessness in contradicting his own state- 
ments. There is very little of the suaviter in modo 
towards his opponents. They are sometimes called 
" pious/' and that sweet word '' brethren" is several 
times applied ; but there are so many abrupt and 
gruff sentences, that the reader can hardly give the 
author the credit of much sincerity in the use of 
that endearing term. The estimate of the argu- 
ment can be better made out, when we shall have 
completed our review. We may, however, be per- 
mitted here to say, that on receiving the work we 
expected to meet something of a much higher order, 
in an argumentative point of view, than we have 
found. 

The work consists of twenty chapters. Nineteen 
of these treat of the same number of supposed 
" evils of infant baptism ;" and the twentieth chap- 
ter recapitulates, and concludes with a pathetic ad- 
dress to Immersionists to labor for the conversion 
and salvation of Pedo-baptists and the world. 

We propose to review the work chapter by chapter 
in the order pursued by the author. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I 

PAGE 

*' Infant Baptism is an evil; because its practice is unsupported 
by the Word of God." 9 

CHAPTER n. 

''Infant Baptism is an evil ; because its defence leads to most in- 
jurious perversions of the Word of God." .... 22 

CHAPTER HI. 

"Infant Baptism is an evil; because it engrafts Judaism upon the 
Gospel of Christ." 36 

CHAPTER ly. 

"Infant Baptism is an evil ; because il falsifies the doctrine of uni- 
versal depravity." 71 

CHAPTER Y. 

"Infant Baptism is an evil; because the doctrines upon which it 
rests contradict the great fundamental principle of justification 
by faith." 84 

CHAPTER YL 

" Infant baptism is an evil ; because it is in direct conflict with the 
doctrine of Regeneration by the Holy Spirit." .... 92 

CHAPTER YII. 

" Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it despoils the Church of inose 
peculiar qualities which are essential to the Church of Christ." . 101 

CHAPTER Yin. 

" Infant Baptism is an evil ; because its practice (?) perpetuates 
the superstitions by which it was originated." .... 121 

CHAPTER IX. 

" Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it subverts the true doctrine 
of infant salvation." 137 



Vlll CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER X. PAGs 

"Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it leads its advocates into re- 
bellion against the authority of Jesus Christ." .... 151 

CHAPTER XL 

" Infant Baptism is an evil ; because of the connection it assumes 
with the moral and religious training of children." . . . 160 

CHAPTER Xn. 

"Infant Baptism is an evil; because it is the grand foundation 
upon which rests the union of Church and State." . . . 163 

CHAPTER Xni. 

*' Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it leads to religious persecu- 
tions." .... 166 

CHAPTER XIY. 

" Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it is contrary to the princi- 
ples of civil and religious freedom." 179 

CHAPTER XV. 

"Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it enfeebles the power of the 
Church to combat error." 183 

CHAPTER XYI. 

" Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it injures the credit of re- 
ligion with reflecting men of the world." 187 

CHAPTER XYII. 

" Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it is the great barrier to Chris- 
tian union." 192 

CHAPTER XVm. 

" Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it prevents the salutary impress- 
iwi which baptism was designed to make upon the minds of both 
those who receive it and those who witness its administration." 196 

CHAPTER XIX. 

"Infant Baptism is an evil; because it retards the designs of 
Christ in ihe conversion of the world." 201 

CHAPTER XX. 
" Recapitulation, with concluding address." . . . . ; 207 



CHAPTEE I. 

** INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE ITS PRACTICE IS UNSUP- 
PORTED BY THE WORD OF GOD." 

If infant baptism's practice is wanting in such 
support, it must be conceded that it has gone out of 
the way. But its lawless conduct not being pointed 
out, we have no opportunity to judge of the propriety 
of its behavior. 

Instead of treating of " its practice," the author 
proceeds to condemn the conduct of the people who 
practice it. His method seems to us rather awk- 
ward. He undertakes to prove the negative proposi- 
tion^ '^ Infant Baptism is unsupported by the Word 
of God," and thence to infer that it is '' an evil." 

The argument in logical form stands thus : 

Whatever is unsupported by the Word of Grod is 
an evil. 

But infant baptism is unsupported by the Word 
of God. 

Therefore, infant baptism is an evil. 

The conclusion will certainly follow if the minor 
premise be proved, and the extension of the major 

1* 



10 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

premise be limited to ^matters of religion, Other«» 
wise the reasoning will not be conclusive. We have 
nothing to do, then, as reviewers, but to examine 
the proof of the negative proposition, 

1. The first proof is in the following style : ^^ Is 
infant baptism supported by the Word of God ? I 
aver that it is not. It is nowhere commanded. 
It is nowhere, in any form, divinely authorized," 
etc. This same idea is bandied back and forth 
in seventeen periods as dogmatic and pointed as 
these. The author seems to be conscious that his 
readers will doubt his sincerity, and he wishes to 
guard that point well. This is the only conceivable 
use of repeating dogmatically the same idea over 
and over so often. We might be as dogmatic as he, 
and say — Infant baptism is supported by the Word 
of God. I aver that it is. It is often commanded. 
It is in its Scriptural form divinely authorized, etc. : 
But there would be as little authority in our dogma- 
tism as in his. 

2. In his next step towards proof, our author con- 
tradicts himself He says of the advocates of infant 
baptism : " It turns out that no two of them havo 
been able to harmonize, either as to what may be re- 
garded as testimony in the premises, or the class of 
infants divinely authorized to be baptized ! Each is 
in collision with every other." And on the same 
page he tells us — '' Wall, Hammond, and others," 
agree in one view of the subject. " OweUj Jennings, 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 11 

and many othei's^'^ agree in another view. ^* Beza, 
Doddridge, and their associates," hold another view. 
'^ Wesley and his disciples " agree in still another. 
And thus he goes on to enumerate nine theories, 
each of which, he says, is supported by a numerous 
class. It will be observed that it is not simply these 
classes that are in conflict. It is '' individual con- 
flicts" the author is speaking of, when he says, " No 
two of them have been able to harmonize," and 
** Each is in collision with every other." A writer 
so reckless in the statement of facts deserves little 
confidence. And an examination of all these writers 
will show that they harmonize better than the writers 
who advocate immersion. It would be easy to pa- 
rade thirty difi'erent views concerning immersion. 
Then, if difierence among its advocates proves the 
want of Scriptural support, Immersionists must give 
up immersion to-day, and practice it no more for- 
ever. '' Happy is he that condemneth not himself in 
that thing which he alloweth." If Immersionists 
may differ without invalidating the argument for 
immersion, Pedo -baptists may also differ without in- 
validating the argument for Pedo-baptism. Let this 
argument stand in its logical form, and we shall see 
how boyish it is. 

Wherever there is a difierence of opinion there is 
no valid argument : 

But there is a diffierence of opinion among Pedo- 
baptists : 



12 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

Therefore, there is no valid argument among 
Pedo-baptists. 

And as there is difference of opinion on almost 
everything under heaven, there is scarcely any truth 
on earth ! Especially, as the author differs with 
himself there is no truth in him, on his own theory. 

3. The third proof that infant baptism is not sup- 
ported by the Scriptures is deduced from the fact 
that " very many of the most learned and pious 
Pedo-baptist biblical critics, themselves candidly 
confess that infant baptism is not distinctly enjoined, 
nor directly taught in the Word of God." On this 
extract we remark : 

(a.) Although the author designed, in the use of 
the words distinctly and directly^ to secure for him- 
self a back door of recreation in the hour of neces- 
sity, yet in his recklessness he closed it against him- 
self; for he says, '' It is confessed by its advocates 
that it (infant baptism) is not found in the inspired 
pages — It is acknowledged that the Word of God 
does not teach infant baptism." Can we wonder 
that the world does not respect Christianityj when a 
D.D., a pastor of a prominent Christian church, will 
venture into daylight with such assertions before 
God and the world ? 

(b.) The Pedo-baptist writers here referred to, are 
conceded to be both 'learned and pious." We 
wish the author, in his next edition, to tell us what 
his notions of piety are ; since in his view a " learn- 



EVILS OF BR. HOWELL. 13 

ed and pious " man may practice for religion what 
he confesses to be not supported by the Word of 
God! 

On examining the authors here referred to, it will 
be found that, although they do not believe that in- 
fant baptism is '• distinctly enjoined, nor directly 
taught," they believe it is clearly involved in other 
commands, and bidirectly taught in the example of 
the Apostles ; and the author knows all that very 
well ; but refuses to let his own witnesses state all 
their testimony. An advocate who can thus trifle 
with testimony, may serve the purposes of a party 
that are afraid of broad daylight ; but he will hold 
no enviable position in the esteem of high-minded 
gentlemen. These " learned and pious Pedo-baptist 
biblical critics" believe, with Immersionists, that 
no one is to be received in the name of Christ with- 
out baptism; and that when he commands us to re- 
ceive little children in his name, he commands us to 
baptize them. This is not a distinct command ; but 
it is necessarily involved in the command to receive 
them in his name, if Immersionists are orthodox in 
refusing to receive any one in his name without bap- 
tism. The Apostles practiced it. They baptized 
households, when the parents believed, without men- 
tioning or intimating faith in any of the household 
except the head of the house. Then here it is in- 
directly taught in apostolic example. 

(c.) The author here attempts to prove by human 



14 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 

testimony that " inftint baptism is unsupported by 
the Word of Grod !" and he knows, and the world 
knows, that his witnesses believe, declare, and prac- 
tice the contrary ! Let conscience — let his own 
conscience — answer what credit is due to one who 
will take such ungenerous steps. Human testimony ! 
and he vociferating for the Bible alone ! But let us 
Lave the third argument in form. 

Then, whatever is declared by ^' learned and pious 
Pedo-baptist biblical critics " is true : 

But these critics declare that '^ infant baptism is 
unsupported by the Word of God." 

Is this the best the whole immersing church can 
do in argument ? To undertake the proof of a 7ieg- 
ative in religion, and that by human testimony on 
the other side of the question, is surely the last re- 
sort in a desperate pressure. 

But these critics declare that Dr. Howell's doc- 
trine is erroneous. 

Therefore it is true that Dr. Howell's doctrine is 
erroneous. 

There, now, Doctor, your gun shoots as hard one 
way as the other. 

4. Immediately after his parade of human testi- 
mony on the other side of the question to prove his 
divine negative^ our author calls our attention to 
^' the great Protestant principle in religion," which 
declares *' The Word of God is a perfect rule of faith 
and practice." After declaring his reverence for 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 15 

this principle, and notifying us, '• For myself and my 
brethren — we are not Protestants," he proceeds to 
inveigh heavily against Protestants for practicing 
infant baptism on human authority without the sup- 
port of the Scriptures ! It would be just as decent 
in us to upbraid Immersionists with the same thing; 
but there is no argument on either side. Here is 
the attitude in which the thing stands : 

The advocates of infant baptism believe the fa- 
thers were men of truth and common sense. They 
were men competent to give testimony concerning 
facts that occurred under their own observation; 
and intelligent Immersionists view them in the very 
same light. The Pedo-baptists come forward with 
certain texts of Scripture, which they believe give a 
clear support to the doctrine of infant baptism ; and 
now they adduce the testimony of the fathers de- 
daring the fact that infants were baptized in their 
churches, and that the practice had prevailed in the 
churches generally from the time of the Apostles. 
They offer this testimony not to prove the divine 
authority for the rite ; but to prove that the early 
fathers understood the Scriptures as they do, and by 
this means they suppose they increase the probability 
that their understanding of the Scriptures is correct. 

Immersionists take exactly the same course to 
prove immersion. They also cite texts of Scripture 
to prove immersion ; and attempt to support their 
interpretation of these texts by a reference to the 



16 EVILS or DR. HOWELL. 

testimony of the fathers, showing that immersion 
was extensively practiced at an early day. 

If in such cases we should charge them with a re- 
sort to human authority, they would repel the charge 
with warmth, and complain grievously of injustice. 
'' Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto 
you, do ye even so unto them." 

They '' are not Protestants !" Then they have no 
objection to the decree of Charles V., that n"o 
Roman Catholic should be allowed to turn Lutheran, 
and that the Reformers should deliver nothing in 
their sermons contrary to the received doctrine of 
the Roman Catholics ! This is a new idea borrowed 
from the Campbellites. Until recently, Immersion- 
ists claimed to be Protestants. Lately they have 
taken it into their heads that they are much older 
than the Reformation, and that their fathers could 
look with indifference on the oppressive edicts of 
Catholic tyrants. Then, who are they ? They can- 
not be successors of the Waldenses, who practiced 
infant baptism, by sprinkling and pouring. Besides, a 
respectable Immersionist says, that the descendants 
of the Waldenses ^' were reckoned among the Pro- 
testants with whom they were in doctrine so con- 
genial." Even the Menonites, according to the tes- 
timony of Mr. Gran, one of their own ministers, 
practiced the various modes of sprinkling, pouring 
and immersion. Who, then, have the Immersionists 
got to be at last ? Not Protestant ! 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. Vt 

After all this ado, our author proceeds to insist 
that all inference from the sacred Scriptures is 
wholly unauthorized. In this he differs very widely 
from his Master, who confuted the Sadducees by an 
inference deduced from the words of God to Moses 
— '' I am the Grod of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." 
He differs greatly from Paul, whose epistles through- 
out are so many chains of connected reasoning from 
the Scriptures. If inferences from the Bible are 
unlawful, our pulpits must be closed ; for preacbing 
consists of little else. He says, " In the Gospel 
every duty is distinctly enjoined." Then, in the 
next edition of his work, the author will confer a 
favor by telling us in what part of the Gospel he is 
^•distinctly enjoined" to baptize females, to plunge 
them into creeks, or to admit them to the commun- 
ion of the church — to hold " Baptist associations" — 
to write and publish a book on " the evils of infant 
baptism," etc. Especially we should be gratified to 
learn in what part of the Gospel it is " distinctly 
enjoined " — Dr. Howell j thou shall remove from 
Nashville to Richmond. Verily, '• thou that judg- 
est doest the same things." He need give himself 
no trouble about apostolic example, and general 
instructions. These we know. We demand a dis- 
tinct INJUNCTION in each of these cases. 

5. Our author's next argument is deduced from 
the apostolic commission, " He that believeth, and 
is baptized, shall be saved." He tells us — '' The 



18 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

persons to be baptized are minutely described. They 
are believers. A law to baptize believers is neces- 
sarily confined in its administration to believers. It 
embraces no others," &c. This idea is repeated 
twelve times. 

When we examine the words of the commission, 
we find the Saviour describes not the persons who 
shall be baptized^ but who shall be saved. Believ- 
ing and being baptized are both attributes belonging 
properly to the subject of salvation. He does not 
say that every believer shall be baptized, nor that 
baptism shall be administered to none but believers, 
nor that any one, who is baptized, shall be saved, nor 
that any one, who is not baptized, shall be lost ; but 
simply that the baptized believer shall be saved. To 
any man, then, who seriously examines the text, it 
must be plain that the intention is not to define the 
subject of baptism, but the subject of salvation. 
Let me offer for consideration another sentence in 
the same regimen — '' He that is industrious and fru- 
gal, shall be rich." Does the speaker here describe 
the subject of frugality, or of wealth ? 

Our author goes on to show, that baptism admits 
the party baptized into the visible church, and de- 
notes his consecration to Grod ; and from these facts 
argues that infant baptism is " unsupported by the 
Word of God." 

This reasoning is seen to be a great fallacy, if we 
recollect that infants are declared by the King him- 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. ' 19 

self to belong to his kingdom, and therefore should 
be baptized in acknowledgment of the fact. It is 
the act of the parent to make this acknowledgment 
and consecration. The infant is incapable of con- 
fessing itself to be a human being; but others ac- 
knowledge that truth, and regard it as a member of 
human society. Suppose now there were a law that 
every citizen of the State is to be denoted by print- 
ing the letter A upon his forehead ; would it be 
proper to place that letter A upon the forehead of 
every infant born in the State ? Then why question 
the right of infants to baptism, unless the intention 
be to question their right to stand in the kingdom 
of God ? If they be proper subjects of salvation, 
they must be proper subjects of baptism ; because 
that is plainly the force of the words, " He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved." If infants 
are numbered with the saved in heaven, why should 
thev not be numbered with them on earth ? These 
are points for consideration. 

6. Still another argument to show that infant bap- 
tism is unsupported by the Word of God," is this — 
" It betrays ministers into the most fearful presump- 
tion, [and it] must create in the minds of the people 
generally^ who are under its influence^ a want of 
proper respect for the Word of God." This is simple 
impudence. Until recently, Immersionists drank 
more alcohol than all other Christians together, and 
even yet they are behind most others in the reform. 



20 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

Thej have been generally very deficient in training 
their children to study the Scriptures. Many have 
no Sabbath, and few of them hare risen to eminence 
in scriptural knowledge ; and yet our author^ who 
must know these facts^ ventures into open daylight 
before the world with the assertion that those who 
practice infant baptism want " proper respect for the 
Word of God." It would be about as true to declare 
that rain prevents the growth of vegetables. 

He says — " It never can be recognized as baptism 
by the people of God." Then, plainly^ he means to 
say that Immersionists are the only people of God : 
because all others do so recognize it. In this he 
assumes to play the judge^ and forgets that he him- 
self is to stand before the Judge. Ah ! Doctor, 
your arm is too tiny to fling the flickering bolts of 
heaven. When you say " Infant baptism necessarily 
destroys respect for the Word of God," you certainly 
destroy respeot for yourself among the well-informed. 

I will close my remarks on the first chapter with 
a notice of one other extract : 

" Infant baptism is not according to the law of 
God. It is a violation of the law of God. It is a 
transgression of the law of God. 

" Therefore, infant baptism is a sin against God." 

This extract much resembles the raviogs of a 
guilty boy, who knows that his crimes are about to 
come to light. He pleads his innocence thus : — / 
did not do it, I am not capable of it, I could 



EYILS OF DR. HOWELL. 21 

7iot do it. I never tJtought of it. It did not come 
into my mind. Nobody believes it. No one can be- 
lieve it^ (^'C. How different is the language of con- 
scious innocence, which makes its denial with dig- 
nity, and when further questioned, replies, ^' I have 
told you already ; wherefore would you hear it 
again ?" If there be any argument in such a bluster 
of words, it would be easy for us to overthrow im- 
mersion by the same process : — '^ Immersion is not 
according to the law of God. It is a violation of 
the law of God. It is a transgression of the law of 
God. Therefore, immersion is a sin against God."' 
But such assertions we should view as mere dicta- 
tion, attempting to lord it over the conscience of 
others. It is all assumption ; and its author is more 
of a braggadocio than of a reasoner. There is 
no evidence, there can be no conviction, and to at- 
tempt to supply the place of evidence with authority^ 
is the proper business of an autocrat or a pope. 



CHAPTEE II. 



MOST INJURIOUS PERVERSIONS OF THE WORD OF GOD. 

In the introduction of this subject the author 
says, " It is the process by which the churches which 
practice it, receive their entire membership. '^ It is 
hard to conceive how any man could live in Christen- 
dom as long as Dr. Howell has, and still be able to 
say that Pedo-baptists " receive their entire mem- 
bership" by infant baptism. If he really supposes 
that they receive no members but those who were 
baptized in infancy, he is deplorably ignorant of the 
facts around him — too ignorant, surely, to write a 
book about them. If he knows the facts in the case, 
and still asserts that all they receive were baptized 
in infancy, I deliver him over to the judgment of 
the people and of God. 

In remarking on the commission as given by 
Matthew — " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name," etc., he says, " The 
order is plainly as imperative as the commands 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 23 

themselves." After repeating this idea four times, 
he proceeds to argue, that as infants are baptized be- 
fore they are taught, it is a violation of the divinely- 
appointed order, and is, therefore, a violation of the 
command itself This is the first instance in the book 
of anything like an argument, and we must treat it 
with respect. "We observe, then, 

1 . The order here spoken of is a mere fancy ; for 
the participle — ^' baptizing"— agrees in case with the 
nominative to the verb — ^' teach" — and in gram- 
matical order, may just as well be placed before as 
after the verb. 

2. His rule would force the author into the doe- 
trine that no one is ever clothed with Christ until 
he is baptized. Gal. 3 ; 27, and if never baptized, 
he never can can be clothed with Christ, and must 
be morally naked forever. 

3. The Saviour did not here institute baptism ; 
but merely commanded his disciples still to admin- 
ister it. They had already baptized under his in- 
structions, according to the ancient usages of the 
church of Grod. He plainly did not describe here 
the subjects of baptism ; but left them to be guided 
in that particular by the instructions which they had 
already received ; and, of course, they would not 
refuse to admit as members of his kingdom such 
little ones as those about which he before gave them 
charges so solemn. 

4. Our author sneers at the idea of making one 



24 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

a disciple bj Ibaptism. If one may be a true disciple 
withcHit baptism, let him explain how it is that he 
refuses to receive as disciples all who are not im- 
mersed. No one can be openly Christ's disciple but 
by baptism. If, then, a disciple is a learner, and if 
training up children ^- in the nurture and admoni- 
tion of the Lord" is to make them learners in re- 
ligion, their young discipleship is as properly com- 
menced with baptism as that of any others. Do 
adults cease to learn after baptism ? 

5. No one contends that adults are baptized until 
they voluntarily agree to be disciples ; because their 
discipleship depends on their own voluntary action. 
But infants are to be made disciples by the instruc- 
tions of their parents preparatory to a right choice 
when they come to maturity. That it is the duty 
of parents to forestall the discipleship of their chil- 
dren none can deny ; and of course none can deny 
the propriety of baptizing them, since every such 
denial involves also the denial of their right to teach 
them the ways of the Lord without first obtaining 
their consent. To baptize them without their consent 
is surely no more an infraction of their liberty than to 
teach them without their consent. Indeed, they are 
incapable of consent, and to their parents they are 
committed to be trained to the exercise of a proper 
consent. Their baptism ^ then, is the solemn conse- 
cration of them as young disciples to be trained to 
know and confess the Lord. The baptism of adults 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 25 

usually takes place as soon as they consent to be 
learned, and the teaching and learning follow baptism. 

Our author concludes this argument with a quite 
pathetic lamentation over the blindness of '^ great 
and good men." Whenever men begin to argue in 
earnest, their charity will certainly gain the ascend- 
ency over their lower passions ; and if our author 
could get the idea that he is a partaker of a com- 
mon weakness with those over whom he laments, he 
might profitably spend in self-examination a part of 
the time thrown away in lamenting over others. 

After quoting the views of men on the import of 
Peter's wordg — " The promise is to you and your 
children" — showing that some believe " the promise" 
is that made to Abraham ; and others, that made 
by Joel concerning the gift of the Spirit. Our 
author, of course, gives his verdict with thoso who 
refer ^' the promise" to the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

It is but just to concede that there are rome 
plausible reasons for this view of the text ; but it 
must be admitted, that the word is so often applied 
emphatically by the Apostles to the covenant of cir- 
cumcision, that it forms a very strong probability in 
favor of the other view. Be this as it may, if our 
author could demonstrate that Peter here alluded 
to " the promise" of the gift of the Holy Spirit, he 
cannot thence conclude, as he does, that the Abra- 
hamic covenant has been annulled ; since Paul ex- 
pressly declares, ^' That the blessing of Abraham 

3 



26 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

might come on the Grentiles through Jesus Christy 
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit 
through faith. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye 
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise J"* 
Gal. 3:14, 29. 

Then our author cannot boast that he has " dis- 
posed of the chief Scripture ground" on wliich in- 
fant baptism rests. For if by faith in Christ we 
become the children of Abraham, and heirs to the 
promise made to him, we must inherit the privilege 
conferred on him. Then let us question the Bible 
here. Did Grod sustain the same relation to Abra- 
ham and his infant children ? Answer — I will ^'* be 
a God unto thee and thy seed after thee ; and he 
that is eight days old shall be circumcised among 
you-^ — and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt 
me and you." Gen. 17 ch. 

But was not circumcision a mere national dis- 
tinction ? Ans. — " He received the sign of circum- 
cision, a seal of the righteousness of faiths 

Then does God also sustain to believers and their 
children under the gospel the same relation as to 
Abraham and his children before the law ? Ans. — 
" If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
and heirs according to the promise." 

Over these eternal bars our author never can 
climb. 

The following is the rendering the Doctor gives 
to 1 Cor. 7 : 14 — " The unbelieving husband is 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 27 

sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
sanctified to the husband, else were your children 
unclean, [to you,] but now are they holy." As thus 
rendered, our author proceeds to argue that the 
Apostle means to teach that the marriage relation 
sanctifies the unbelieving party to the believing, and 
on the same ground the children are holy to the 
parents. To sustain himself, he quotes several 
authors, and says, ^^ Upon this point, therefore, we 
are certainly right." 

It is very strange that one who makes his appeal 
to the Bible, and rebukes others so fiercely for ap- 
pealing to human authority, should conclude he is 
^' certainly right," because he agrees with great men ! 
Bat our author does not mark closely what Paul 
says. He says that children would be unclean^ if 
the unbelieving party were not sanctified by the be- 
lieving. Now, it is plain that where both parties 
are unbelievers, neither can sanctify the other, so 
that their children must be unclean [to them] by his 
own showing. But that is not the fact. Unbelievers 
do not regard their children as unclean [to them.] 

The rendering here given is forced and unnatural, 
and would never occur to one who had no purpose 
to serve by it. It also compels one to foist into the 
text the words to you. Our common translation is 
far more natural and proper, and leads us into no 
difficulty. The plain and obvious import of the text 
is, that those children whose parents are both un- 



28 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

believers are in some sense unclean^ but those who 
have even but one believing parent are in some 
sense holy. This sense has been shown in the True 
Baptist, vol. 1, pages 345-353. 

The Doctor seems to think the advocates of infant 
baptism attach much importance to '' a holy pedigree." 
If he will take the trouble to seek correct informa- 
tion, he will find that it is not to " a holy pedigree" 
we look, but to a holy example and holy instruc- 
tions. We have before proved, as in the case of 
Abraham^s lineal descendants and those of all be- 
lievers, that grace does not follow the line of natural 
generation; but that of proper instruction. God 
says of Abraham — " I know him, that he will com- 
mand his children and his household after him, and 
they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice 
and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon 
Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.'^ 

Here the Doctor may please to note that the bless- 
ing goes not by ^' pedigree," but by wholesome re- 
straints and instructions as well to his household as 
to his children ; and to this day we baptize wards 
and servants as readily as children.* Then our 
Doctor is shamefully ignorant of facts, or deplorably 
regardless of justice to others. 

In the close of his remarks on 1 Cor. vii. 14, our 
author gives us what he deems a poser. It is this : 
" If, then, you baptize the child upon the faith of 
* True Baptist, pp. 309-315. 



EVILS OF DR, HOWELL. 29 

its mother, you must, to be consistent, baptize the 
unbelieving husband upon the faith of his wife, since, 
if the child is holy^ so also is the unbelieving father 
sanctified P Let us try the validity of this argu- 
ment by applying it to another subject. Then it 
will run thus : 

If you allow the mother, upon her authority as a 
mother, to chastise her delinquent child, you must, 
to be consistent, allow her to chastise her delinquent 
husband ; since, if the child be delinquent^ so is also 
the father a transgressor . . , Woe to the Doctor 
and all other husbands, if the authority of his own 
logic were established. To make his argument valid, 
he must prove that the wife has authority over her 
husband's conscience to command and control it by 
example and instruction, as she commands and con- 
trols the conscience of her children during their 
minority. And since the believing husband sancti- 
fies the wife also, he must prove that the husband 
has the same authority to control his wife's con- 
science as to control that of his own children. Then 
the husband and the wife would each possess abso- 
lute, parental authority over the other ! God save 
the family and the state from Immersional policy, 
and the world from Immersional logic ! If the hus- 
band were a minor, like an infant, under the control 
of his wife, it would be very proper to baptize him, 
not ^^ upon," but u?ider^ the faith of his wife. But 
as this is not the fact, he can no more be baptized 

3* 



30 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

under the faith of the wife than the son grown to 
self responsibility can be baptized under the faith of 
his mother. 

The next passage that receives the attention of 
our author is Matt. xix. 14, where it is declared of 
little children, '' Of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
He admits that the phrase '' kingdom of heaven'^ 
means the Christian church ; but how to keep the 
little intruders out^ while the Master stands at the 
gate rebuking his disciples and bidding the " little 
children" welcome, is rather hard for him to con- 
ceive. After shuffling about in great perturbation, 
he makes the learned discovery that toimiton^ *• such," 
does not mean same; but really means " such;^' and, 
of course J that the kingdom of heaven, or Christian 
church, does not consist of the same as little children^ 
but only of '' such" as little children f That is, little 
children make no part of those who are in the king- 
dom, but those who are in it are, in some respects, 
like little children. On this view of the subject, let 
us remark : 

1. If we should accuse the Immersers of preach- 
ing infant damnation, the color would rise in their 
faces, and they would complain vehemently of perse- 
cution. Still, in this work, accredited and published 
to the world as the true statement of their doctrines^ 
it is distinctly denied that infants make either part 
or parcel of the kingdom of God ! If, then, they do 
not belong to this kingdom, how, in the name of 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 31 

reason, are they to have a place in it ? Our doctrine 
is, that all infants do belong to this kingdom ; and 
that therefore all parents ought to confess this truth 
by baptism, the only authorized acknowledgment of 
the fact. But such is the opposition of Immersion- 
ists to this doctrine of infant baptism, that they will, 
under the rebuke of Jesus, refuse to infants a place 
in his kingdom. 

2. If those who do compose this kingdom are like 
little children in disposition, and for that reason are 
admitted into it, we should like to have the ground 
explained, on which the little children are excluded. 
If the admitted adult is just like the infant in cer- 
tain respects, on what ground is the infant excluded, 
when he is admitted to have the very same disposi- 
tion ? Our author says little children love, believe, 
obey, and receive the instruction of their parents ; 
and the same affections in adults towards God form 
their qualification for the kingdom of God ; but he 
forgets that God has made the little child responsible 
to the parent, and requires it to exercise towards its 
parent the same feelings he requires adults to exer- 
cise towards himself 

By his own showing, then, the little child yields 
the same obedience as the adult; and our Lord 
teaches that this obedience is so much more perfect 
in the little child than in the adult, that he sends 
the latter to the former for an instructive example. 
God has required the child to love, obey, and believe 



32 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

its parents — duties suited exactly to its powers — and 
will he not reward that little one's obedience with a 
place in his kingdom, when he receives into the same 
king'dom the sinner, who returns to duty under the 
influences of his saving grace ? What strange hal- 
lucinations come over the mind from opposition to 
infant baptism ! 

When Jesus tells us that we must ^' receive the 
kingdom of Grod as a little child ^''^ the plain import 
of his words teaches that a little child does receive 
the kingdom of God ; and in this very respect it is a 
proper example to the adult. Do little children re- 
ceive the kingdom, and are they still excluded from 
it ? Immersionists say they cannot enter. Christ 
says, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven" — they re- 
ceive it. Then they shall enter and triumph over all 
their opponents, and sing their victory over doctors 
and preachers in the glories of the kingdom forever 
and ever. 

3. But Immersers say that none are to enter the 
kingdom but believers. Then they will be so good 
as to remember that none are to be saved but be- 
lievers. If the want of personal faith excludes them 
from the church, it will also exclude them from 
i^aven. Here again is infant damnation as rank as 
the fumes of tophet. If they apply to infants one 
passage, that is spoken of adults, they open the flood- 
gates which sweep them to hell. We can never see 
clearly till we allow God to speak for himself. When 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 33 

he speaks of infants, let it stand firm as the everlast- 
ing hills — " Of such is the kingdom of heaven.'' 
And when he says, " He that believeth not, shall be 
damned," let no rash mortal try to turn the curse 
aside to the head of an infant, unless he be willing 
to incur the peril of being himself swallowed up and 
consumed by the fearful denunciation. 

Does the Bible teach that all who die in infancy 
enter immediately into the kingdom of heaven ? All 
creation answers, Yes. Then does the Bible teach 
that young infants are believers in Christ ? Not an 
affirmative is heard. Are there any in heaven ap- 
pointed to the special care of infants ? Jesus an- 
swers, ^' Verily I say unto you, their angels do al- 
ways behold the face of my Father." There these 
cherubic nurses will lead and teach them, while the 
Holy Spirit enlightens and guides their souls to the 
exercise of every holy affection, so that all they shall 
ever learn or know, will be to love, believe, and obey 
Jesus Christ ; and yet the baptism of water is deemed 
too pure for them to receive, and the church on earth 
too holy to give them a place ! No ; the whole se- 
cret is, Immersionists are afraid of strangling them 
in the awkward mode of immersion, and rather than 
give up that human invention, they will exclude in- 
fants from the kingdom of heaven; and the more 
consistent among them boldly and publicly preach, 
that there are " infants in hell no more than a span 
long!" 



34 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

But it is a little amusing to see how our author 
disposes of Matthew Henry's, and Dr. Clarke's com- 
ments on this passage. He quotes Henry's first, and 
lays him out with three exclamation points, as fol- 
lows : '' Look at this gloss ! Ponder it ! How pre- 
posterous!" This is all he says about it, and, poor 
mortal, it is all he can say. What a picture of vacu- 
ity any ocie must present, when offering such excla- 
mations in the room of solid argument ! 

He then quotes from Dr. Clarke, and abolishes 
his views with two exclamations of greater length, 
thus : '' These, and such like, are the Pedo-Baptist 
interpretations of the passage in question ! They 
are published to the world, and received, and de- 
fended, as expressing its true sense !" and thus he 
confutes Dr. Clarke. 

But after getting away from these comments into 
another paragrah, the Doctor seems suddenly to grow 
bold, and turning about, he dilutes the comments of 
these great men with a quantity of his own thoughts 
as weak as water, thrown in among the words of the 
commentators ; and we expected some demonstration 
at the close of this paragraph ; but every word of 
refutation is in these two exclamations — " What per- 
versions! What falsifications of truth !" Yet Im- 
mersionists will open their mouths, I dare say, and 
stare with profound astonishment at the wisdom, 
which is seen neither by themselves nor any body 
else ! Why, the man wonders mightily at the follies 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 35 

of other people. He must, therefore, be very wise 
himself. But his wonder is so great he can give no 
utterance to his thoughts ! No, friend, he has no 
thoughts. If he had, they would find utterance. 
He quotes from other arguments, which he knows 
he cannot answer, to make you believe that he is can- 
did. He then wonders over them to make you be- 
lieve he is so astonished at their weakness that he 
cannot utter a word, when, in reality, he is so con- 
founded that he has not a word to say. Whenever 
our author can think of anything plausible, he man- 
ifests no trouble in utterance. The profusion of ex- 
clamations comes from no deep resources of wisdom, 
but from the empty vaults of conscious inability. 
This is the best the whole denomination can do — to 
use exclamations for arguments. If they had argu- 
ments we should hear them. Let them stand, then. 
and wisely wonder, while we proceed in the light of 
clear argument, always drawn from the Bible, to 
place the truth before the world. Already increas- 
ing light, has forced them to educate their ministers, 
and the same light as it approaches a more perfect 
day, will compel them to abandon their errors. 



CHAPTBE III. 

"infant baptism is an EYIL; because it engrafts JU- 
DAISM UPON THE GOSPEL OP CHRIST. 

The word Judaism is usually employed to denote 
all the ordinances and ceremonies of the Jewish 
Church before the coming of our Saviour ; but our 
author seems to confine it to only a few of these. If 
everything contained in Judaism is to be condemn- 
ed as opposed to the gospel of Christ, we must view 
the law as being against the promises, and discard 
from our creed the fundamental doctrine of the uni- 
ty of God, and Jesus must then take the character 
of the destroyer of the law, and not its fulfiller. 
It must be remembered in this sweeping condemna- 
tion, that baptism itself is one of the most promi- 
nent and oft-repeated ordinances of the Jewish ser- 
vice; and if Judaism is to be indiscriminately 
condemned, then adult baptism goes with infant 
baptism. 

The chapter before us opens with the declaration 
that there are but two theories of church organiza- 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 37 

tion, which are consistent with themselves. ^^ The 
former is Baptist. The latter is Roman Catholic." 
Now we know why ^' the Baptists are not Protest- 
ants" — They are consistent with themselves, like 
the Roman Catholics. Neither of these are denom- 
inations. They are both consistent churches. " Be- 
tween these two," says Dr. H., " and partaking more 
or less of both, stand, all the various Frotestant 
denominations. Their evangelical spirituality is 
^ Baptist.' Their other characteristics, and especial- 
ly their infant baptism, is Roman Catholic, or rather 
Judaism, of which Popery is confessedly a continu- 
ation." It would be hard to guess who in creation 
ever confessed that except Dr. H., and he had better 
been confessing something else. But let us examine 
the points, 

1. Popery a continuation of Judaism ! Popery 
contains far more of Paganism than Judaism. What 
part of Judaism authorizes prayers for the dead^ the 
invocation of saints, the worship of images, absolu- 
tion by a priest, indulgences, counting beads, the 
confessional, purgatory, transubstantiation, or, in- 
deed, anything else that is peculiar to Popery? 
Charity itself forbids us to attribute this slur on all 
the Protestant churches to ignorance in our author. 
Why do we protest against Popery if we partake so 
largely of it ? Judaism was peculiar in its attach- 
ment to ordinances, and we cheerfully leave it to the 
enlightened world to say if Immersionists and Ro- 

4 



38 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

man Catholics do not make more ado about ordi« 
nances than all others. The Immersers admit no 
one to partake with them of the emblems of the Sa- 
viour's dying love, unless he has been immersed in 
water. They preach more about immersion than 
about any thing else. It is rarely omitted in a single 
sermon. Compare these facts with the fastidious ad- 
herence of Jewish formalists to the outward things 
of the law, and it will be easy to determine where 
Judaism reigns. 

2. " Their evangelical spirituality is Baptist !" 
An arrogant assumption, indeed ! Luther getting 
" evangelical spirituality" from Munzer ! and Meth- 
odists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians bor- 
rowing evangelism from Campbellite, Mormon, Two- 
seed, and other Dippers ! What an idea ! Borrow 
^' evangelical spirituality" from Antinomian, Sabbath- 
breaking Dippers ! from Immersionist ministers una- 
ble to write their own name to a bond ! and boasting 
that they have no "larnin" — that they "never rub- 
bed their backs against college walls !" From 
" Baptists," rent into a thousand schisms about mis- 
sions, temperance, the resurrection, two-seedism, &c. ! 
" Baptists !" who, until quite recently, would sooner 
excommunicate a man for uniting with a Temperance 
Society, a Sunday School, or a Bible Class, than for 
drunkenness ! They the fathers and conservators of 
evangelism ! They the fountain of '' evangelical 
spirituality !" and this day their bigotry will more 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 39 

promptly excommunicate a member for celebrating 
a Saviour's love with other Christians than for gross 
immoralities ! 

These are dreadful facts ; but they are known to 
the world. They are facts over which we should 
draw the veil of charity forever, especially, since of 
late years there has been a decided improvement in 
the intelligence and the morals of Immersionists ; 
but when they come forward before the world with 
the arrogant claim of being the fathers and only 
supporters of '• evangelical spirituality," the claims 
of religion require that their self-conceit be exposed, 
and their own good demands that they be reminded 
of the hole of the pit from whence they were digged. 
They owe a debt of gratitude also to the steady pi- 
ety of those whom they scorn. But for the learn- 
ing and '' evangelical spirituality" of others, the 
light of " the Baptists" had sunk in darkness, an- 
tinomianism, fatality, and formalism. I am well 
aware that there are individuals in the Immersinc: 
churches to whom the foregoing facts do not apply. 
Still they contribute their money and lend their in- 
fluence to circulate such intolerable slander and in- 
sult on all other Christians ; and they must be held 
responsible for it until they publish to the world 
their protest against the circulation of the slanders 
of this book published by their own denominational 
gocieties. I ask them to look back but a few years, 
and consider what the Inimersionist church then 



40 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

was, and say, in the light of facts, if it be decent in 
them to claim the credit of all the '^ evangelical 
spirituality " which shone with steady lustre among 
others, when Immersionists were sunk in all the im- 
morality and ignorance which are naturally engen- 
dered by antinomianism and fatality. Immersionists 
must know, then, that they cannot practice with im- 
punity such iiitemperaie slander on others. 

That the world may see the truth of what I here 
assert, and that the Immersers may better appre- 
ciate their obligations to others, I beg leave to intro- 
duce the testimony of an Immersionist writer on this 
subject, who, it will be seen, is better informed as to 
the facts than our author. It is as follows : 

u Previous to the commencement of the present 
century, our theology was principally of that cramped 
and crabbed kind now usually known as Hyper-Cal- 
vinism ; the aspect of our churches was repulsive to 
all who had been brought up within their pale, and 
of these an immense proportion, as they grew up, 
entered the world and were lost to the Saviour's 
kingdom. The sad prominence which was given to 
the fatalistic principles of a pseudo-Calvinism, equal- 
ly deterred the bulk of religious professors from 
seeking the conversion of their own children and 
attempting to make any conquests in the unbelieving 
multitude around. Happily for us, the sledge-ham- 
mer of the Northamptonshire theologian shattered 
this system to pieces, and then, to complete the 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 41 

work, the simple-minded devotion of William Carey, 
the practical logic of such men as Sutcliffe and Ry- 
land, and the angelic piety of Samuel Pearce, cast 
in the seed of better sentiments. It was an appeal 
to Christian sympathy from the aberrations of 
Christian doctrine, and the effect was triumphant. 
The debates of theologians might have led to the 
ruin of existing organizations, without building up 
anything better ; but commiseration for the spiritual 
condition of the heathen awoke the slumbering life 
of the Church ; life produced harmony of belief; the 
soul-benumbing dogmas which had so long held it in 
bondage were cast off, and a glorious fabric was com- 
menced, which is still going on, destined to receive 
its top-stone some day. London partook of this 
influence, and owes to it, at this hour, any extending 
signs of life which seem to appear. 

'• The numerous class of churches within the me- 
tropolitan boundaries of which I have already spoken, 
as still retaining much of what was harsh and repul- 
sive in the theology of the last century, continue, for 
the most part, to stand aloof from Missions, but 
still, from time to time, a secession is taking place ; 
one after another shows symptoms of relenting; per- 
haps a collection on behalf of the Foreign Mission is 
alloived. This is a small thing, but it is enough ; 
the thin edge of the wedge introduces the thicker 
part, and the moment such a collection is systemat- 
ically allowed, the church which grants the boon fixes 

4* 



42 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

also its own destiny. The process may be a lengthy 
one, but sooner or later its old trammels will be 
thrown away, and it will stand forth as a champion 
for truth and salvation in a dying world." 

This Immersionist does not seem to think that 
other Christians were much indebted to " Baptists 
for evangelical spirituality." 

As our author does not inform us wherein the 
other Christian denominations resemble Roman 
Catholics, except in infant baptism, we may content 
ourselves for the present with knowing that none of 
us have more resembled them in immorality than 
the Immersers ; and we rejoice in bearing testimony 
to their improvement of late in '' evangelical spiritu- 
ality;" and while we thank God for that, we rebuke 
them before the world for arrogantly claiming the 
praise of all the piety found in other churches. If, 
instead of slandering their benefactors, by the light 
of whose piety they have been elevated to intelli- 
gence and a better morality, they would now unite 
heart and hand with those who have helped them, to 
enlighten and save others, they would be rendering 
better service than in proud, empty boasts of them- 
selves, and detraction of others. 

It is surely the lowest species of reasoning to find 
the condemnation of a point in the fact that it is 
held by Roman Catholics, since they are known to 
hold many fundamental truths. There is little 
doubt but the Greek church is even more corrupt 



EVILS OF DK. HOWELL. 43 

than the Catholic, and yet it practices both immer- 
sion and infant baptism. The Mormons, also, who 
are nothing superior to the very worst of men, ad- 
here with great tenacity to immersion. Now, if im- 
mersion is not to be abandoned, because it is 
practiced by bad men, let Dr. Howell, in his next 
edition, show how the same argument avails against 
infant baptism. 

In considering the argument for infant baptism 
drawn from the Abraham ic covenant, our author says, 
^'' It proves immeasurably too much." This sense- 
less, but popular, aphorism is in the mouth of every 
sciolist. When such a one wishes to appear pro- 
found, and knows nothing else to say, he is sure to 
begin with this or some kindred saying. '^ It proves 
too much " ! Too much of what ? Does it prove 
too much truth ? or too much falsehood ? No argu- 
ment ever can prove that to be true, which is false. 
Then there can be no danger of proving too much 
falsehood ; and none but the guilty will be likely to 
suffer with the apprehension that any argument can 
prove too much truth. 

Unless, then, this argument proves too much for the 
Immersionists to answer, it is difficult to see in what 
sense the terms can be used, and even this, I appre- 
hend, might be done without much endangering the 
highest happiness of the human family. 

But our author shall say what this argument 
proves, that ought not to be proved. 



44 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

1. He thinks the principles involved in the argu- 
ment for infant baptism, which is drawn from the 
Abrahamic covenant and circumcision, would prove 
episcopacy also, which is one thing too much. Let 
us briefly examine this point. This argument for in- 
fant baptism runs thus : 

The church has always existed under the same 
covenant ; for in all ages " they which be of 
faith are blessed with faithful Abraham — that 
the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gen- 
tiles through Jesus Christ — and if ye be Christ's, 
then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according 
to the promise : therefore it is of faith, that it 
might be by grace, to the end that the promise might 
be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which 
is of the law, but to that also which is of the 
faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all." — 
See Gal. 3 : 9, 14, 29. Rom. 4:16. Now as every 
Gentile believer becomes a child of Abraham, and 
an heir of every blessing promised to him in the true 
sense of the promises, we argue thus : 

Jewish circumcision before Christ was one out- 
ward seal of faith. 
. Baptism has always been an outward seal of faith. 

Circumcision and baptism are, therefore, outward 
seals of the same thing. 

But in the days of circumcision it was adminis- 
tered as a seal to infants. 

Since, then, baptism is a seal of the same thing, 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 45 

and all believers inherit the same blessing under the 
same covenant with Abraham, their children must 
also receive the seal of faith, which is baptism. 

According to Dr. Howell, the argument for epis- 
copacy runs thus : 

" In the Jewish church there were three orders in 
the ministry, each a grade above the other in dignity 
and authority; the chief priests, the common priests, 
and the Levites. There are. therefore, three orders 
in the ministry of the Christian church. It is the 
same church and under the same covenant." 

Thus Dr. H. thinks the argument proves ^^ too 
much." It proves episcopacy, which ought never to 
be proved by anybody, or by any argument ! But 
if we mean to be candid men, we must never object 
to the point established by an argument. We must 
examine the argument itself, and see whether it be 
valid. If it be valid, let it stand with all that it 
proves, as truth. If the argument be found invalid, 
let it be rejected as worthless, and proving nothing 
at all. If a valid argument prove episcopacy, let 
episcopacy stand as true ; but never let us reject an 
argument, because it proves some point which we do 
not wish to have proved. This is pj'ejitdice^ and 
must forever prevent our 'receiving the truth, even 
when proved. This method would put an everlast- 
ing period to all reasoning; since every one must 
have an equal right to choose for himself what he 
would not agree to have proved to him ; and on our 



46 EVILS OF DRi HOWELL. 

author's ground, he might conclude that any such 
point is '^ too much " to be proved, and so reject it. 
When he argues for immersion, I might dispose of 
his whole argument, by simply remarking. That is 
" too much." 

The only case in which we may assail the point 
supposed to be proved by any argument, is in what 
logicians call the reductio ad absicrdum^ where we 
demonstrate the conclusion to be an absurdity, and 
thence infer the unsoundness of the argument, on the 
ground that no sound argument can prove an absur- 
dity to be true. In all other cases we examine the 
argTiment itself But our author seems to admit 
the proper connection between the terms of the argu- 
ment under consideration, but objects to the conclu- 
sion, simply on the ground that it proves what ought 
not to be proved. He makes no attempt at the 
reductio ad ahsurdum^ and well for him he does 
not ; for no one can show that episcopacy is a blank 
absurdity. 

As to the three orders in the ministry of the Jew- 
ish church, we find them all in the Immersionist 
church. There is the chairman, or moderator, of 
their Association, answering exactly to the Jewish 
" high priest." There is the great body of the min- 
istry, or elders, answering exactly to the " common 
priests." There, also, are the deacons, answering 
exactly to the Levites. Immersionists also believe 
that their elders are episcopoi^ that is, hislwjjs. So 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 



47 



there is the episcoi^acy of the Old Testament and 
the New in the Immersionist church ! and it is no 
wonder the Doctor admits the argument as valid, 
sound and logical, since it is the corner-stone of his 
church polity. But it is truly wonderful that he re- 
jects infant baptism, simply because it is " too much ;" 
since he admits that the principles of the argument 
are the very same in both cases. 

But Dr. H. may plead that although he uses the 
simple term '* episcopacy," he means diocesan '' epis- 
copacy." Well, well, with that we have nothing 
to do at present. But if the Doctor admits the 
validity of the argument as proving diocesan episco- 
pacy, he ought to become a prelatical Episcopalian, 
and drop what he now deems as scriptural episco- 
pacy, instead of complaining that the argument 
proves " too much." If my argument related to 
that form of episcopacy instead of infant baptism, I 
should think it worth while to raise these questions — 
How far are the Jewish priests the representatives 
of the Christian ministry, and how far did they rep- 
resent the mediatorial offices of Jesus Christ? Did 
the chief priest, or high priest, the ordinary priest, 
and the Levite, occupy different grades of the same 
office, or were they appointed each to the discharge 
of specific duties^ co-ordinate in importance ? How 
far were the prophets the representatives of the 
Christian ministry !■ Are not all believers priests in 
the very same sense ? 



48 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

Now, as the complaint of our author is not against 
the soundness of the argument, but simply that it 
" proves too much," and as its validity in relation to 
their ecclesiastical polity is admitted by him and the 
whole '' Baptist churchy" I leave it for him and them 
to answer the questions relating to diocesan episco- 
pacy, and to invalidate all its force in support of that 
form of episcopacy, or to continue their wail that it 
" proves too much." Our conclusion is, that by our 
author's own showing, the same argument that 
establishes the polity of '' the Baptist church," also 
proves infant baptism. 

2. Another point which our author deems as 
proved by the same argument that proves infant 
baptism, he thinks is quite " too much." It is this : 
" The Jewish church was a national church, and the 
Christian church is the same church ; therefore the 
Christian church must be a national church. You 
will perceive, therefore, that we have a divine com- 
mand for the union of church and state." 

As we can think of no more direct way of con- 
vincing our author that this syllogism is incorrect, 
we beg him not to be displeased while we evolve its 
beauties on himself, thus : 

The Right Reverend John Hughes, Bishop of 
New York, is a D.D. 

But Rev. R. B. C. Howell is the same : 

Therefore Rev. R. B. C. Howell, D.D., is the 
Right Reverend John Hughes, D.D., Bishop of 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 49 

New York. That is ''too mucli," to be sure; but 
the good of it is, there is no truth in the argument. 
Yet it is the same argument as that by which Dr. H. 
would prove that the Christian church must be a na- 
tional church, because it is the same church as the 
Jewish. The Jewish church was the same church 
after it was united with the state as before that 
union. When it is said that the church is the same 
in all ages, the plain import of the language is, that 
the church has always stood under the same consti- 
tution, the same fundamental laws, and is the same 
body in the sense that the state remains the organic 
body so long as the fundamental principles of the 
constitution remain the same, though it pass through 
many generations, and though its statutory laws be 
often repealed and re-eijacted. Nor can the vicissi- 
tudes of adversity, prosperity, declension and prog- 
ress, affect its identity. Factitious circumstances, 
or external appendages, can no more change the 
identity of a church, state, or other body politic, 
than a man's office or clothing can change his per- 
sonal identity. The circumstance of a church being 
united to a state, or disunited, affects its identity no 
more than the mixture of sand and sugar affects the 
nature of one or the other. 

Our author asks, " Are you a Pedo-baptist ? To 
be consistent you must be a Papist. — Infant baptism 
— popery, the union of church and state, the mass, 
cardinals, robes, all — stand or fall together." We 

5 



50 EVILS or DR. HOWELL. 

would respectfully remind oixr author that the day 
is rapidly hastening when the church and state, puri- 
fied and elevated, shall again be lost in a grand and 
holy union — when the kingdoms of this world shall 
become the kingdoms of our Lord. Then, if infant 
baptism and the union of the church and state 
*^ stand or fall together," infant baptism will stand 
aloft, when the kingdom of Christ makes this happy 
and glorious union. Amen ! let the day hasten ; 
then, by their own admission, the Immersers will 
cease to exclude infants from the church and king- 
dom of our Lord Jesus Christ — then the church and 
the state shall be one, and the Immersers, swallowed 
up in the glory, shall forget their exclusive bigotry, 
and practice infant baptism in the union of church 
and state during the long millennial reign. This 
may now be deemed '^ too much " to be proved ; but 
if Dr. H. has not admitted '^ too much " in saying 
that "infant baptism and the union of church and 
state — stand or fall together," the conclusion is just 
as certain as that the church and state will be one 
under the millennial reign of Christ. 

3. Our author, in the next place, grows rather 
vehement against Judaizing teachers; and if there 
were any now in the church who insisted on circum- 
cising their infants, or adults — if any wished now to 
introduce the tabernacle, or temple service into the 
church, we should say that his exhortation, if couched 
in more respectful language, would do good. It 



EVILS OF DR. EOWELL. 51 

may, perhaps, be beneficial to those branches of the 
Immersionist sect who, even yet, are so wanting in 
'' evangelical spirituality " as to teach that baptism 
is essential in order to pardon and salvation, which 
was a doctrine of formalist Jews. He says: " As 
some of the Canaanites were left in Israel, so Juda- 
ism remained in the church to try the faith of the 
people of God." It is true that some among ^' the 
Baptists," Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and the 
Greek church, still give an undue importance to 
ordinances, and exclude all others from their fellow- 
ship on account of some ritual dogmas of their own; 
but the light is increasing, and those baptized in in- 
fancy are brought up to understand the gospel bet- 
ter ; and, on the whole, we are encouraged to hope 
the day is not far distant when these errors will give 
way to " evangelical spirituality." 

4. The next position of our author is, that the 
argument for infant baptism, drawn from the Abra- 
hamic covenant, " fails entirely ; because it perverts, 
and renders wholly unintelligible, the true scriptural 
analogy of the church." He says : '^ Pedo-baptists 
call the argument for infant baptism, which we are 
now combating, analogy ; but it is in truth identi- 
tyP The language is here very loose — no Pedo- 
baptist would use it. The argument is neither 
analogy nor identity ; but is drawn by analogy from 
the same principles, and the identity of the church in 
all dispensations is a necessary part of the argument. 



52 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

When the Immerslonists prove tbat we Gentiles 
do not become the children of Abraham and heirs 
of all the blessings promised to him, we shall be 
compelled to give up the identity of the church, and 
then we must give up this argument for infant bap- 
tism, drawn not from the identity^ but the analogy^ 
of circumcision and baptism, as being, both of them, 
seals of faith in Christ. Our author tells us : '^ The 
whole Jewish church, therefore^ was a figure, or 
type, of the Christian church." Then, we ask, 
where are the infants? A strange sort of type, this, 
if iufants are not permitted to enter the Christian 
church, when the type coDtained them. 

But our author, foreseeing this difficulty, sets 
forth a rule in hermeneutics which he does his best 
to establish by human authority, because no divine 
authority could be found. The law he gives us in 
these words: " No externalin^iiiuiion^ or fact, in the 
Old Testament is a type of an external institution, 
or fact, in the New Testament. External institu- 
tions and facts in the Old Testament are invariably 
types of internal and spiritual institutions and facts 
in the New Testament." 

I must confess that I am at a loss to determine to 
my own satisfaction the meaning of this language. 
I suppose that a ^' spiritual institution " is intended 
for some outward institution, having a spiritual 
meaning. I know of no institution which is spiritual 
in the proper sense of the word, which, so far as I 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 53 

know, is always used to denote something incorporeal, 
not material, or visible — something refined from ex- 
ternal things. Then, it seems to me that, while 
many of our institutions have meanings truly refined 
and spiritual, they themselves are of necessity con- 
fined to what is material and visible. I remark, 
then, that Jesus our Saviour was a visible person, 
and that in heaven He still wears this visible body 
with the scars of His crucifixion in it. In this very 
body He was openly and visibly crucified on the cross 
before the eyes of the multitude. Abraham, Moses, 
David and others, were visible persons, and per- 
formed visible acts, typical of Him and His acts. 
The bleeding lamb and other sacrifices were visible 
types of Him who not only ofi'ered His soul to Grod, 
but His body was crucified, and His real, visible, 
material blood flowed out in sight of His crucifiers 
and others, as did. the blood of the typical sacrifices ; 
and Paul tells us that " the bodies of those beasts, 
whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the 
high priest, were burned without the camp," and in 
fulfilment of that type Jesus "sufi'ered without the 
gate." 

No matter, then, how many, nor how great, are 
the human names brought forward in support of this 
hermeneutical law, it must be set aside as unconsti- 
tutional, and, therefore, null and void ; and of no 
more force than if the same had never been enacted 
by great men. And, indeed, so obviously is this rule 

5* 



54 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

opposed to the general tenor of the Scriptures, that 
our author contradicts it himself on the next page, 
where he says: '' They [the sacrifices] were all types, 
and pointed to the great sacrifice in the person of 
Christ, to be in the fulness of time offered by Him 
on the cross." He then tells us, '- In the Jewish 
church offerings were presented to God in behalf of 
the people by the priests only ; [but] in the Christian 
church sacrifices are spiritual — the sacrifices of G-od 
are a broken spirit ; a broken and a contrite heart." 
It is unutterably strange that one of such standing 
would venture to quote from Ps. 51 : 17, these words 
to prove that all spirituality is in the Christian 
church, and that there was none in the Jewish. Can 
it be that Dr. H. supposes all his readers to be so 
ignorant of the Bible as not to know that Old Tes- 
tament saints understood the offering of spiritual 
sacrifices to God ? 

It is not only vain and foolish, but it is wicked, 
thus to slander the holy prophets, who warned the 
people not to trust in oblations, but to offer, in faith 
and deep repentance, the pure affections of the heart 
to God. The Immersionists very well know that in- 
fant baptism will be practiced so long as the inspired 
and holy prophets are revered. They know that 
their only prospect of success in argument against it, 
is to bring reproach on the prophets to whom Christ 
and the apostles referred for authority. They scan- 
dalize as sensualists the men who lived and walked 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 55 

by faith — '^ who through faith subdued kingdoms, 
wrought righteousness, obtained promises/' &c. A 
large part of the work before us is merely a tirade 
of abuse on God's church and God's prophets, Moses 
in particular, and on God's ordinances. Infant bap- 
tism can never be banished in this way. There is 
yet too much reverence for God's Word for even 
professed Christians to stigmatize it out of the esteem 
of the men of faith in God. 

But the reader is curious to know what use the 
Dippers have for the law, which we have been exam- 
ining. It is this: 

Abraham's natural children were the types of 
Christ's spiritual children, and as Abraham's young 
children were to be circumcised, so Christ's young 
children are to be baptized ! Abraham's babes were 
not types of the natural offspring of believers in the 
church, but of those born of the Spirit. 

I have already shown that the principle, or rule, 
under which this reasoning takes place, is unscrip- 
tural, and, therefore, the reasoning itself must be 
erroneous. But, the position here taken, I wish to 
offer the following remarks : 

(a.) If it were true, Abraham must be more 
properly a type of the Holy Spirit than of Christ, 
since all the spiritual children who fulfil the types 
of Abraham's natural children, are begotten by the 
Spirit. I need not say that this is altogether con- 
trary to the Scriptures. All see it. 



56 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

(b.) If this theory were true, no one should be 
baptized until the eighth day after the new birth — 
or, if we take a day for a year, as is usual in the 
types, no one is to be baptized till eight years after 
he is born again. All this is contrary to the prac- 
tice of the apostles, and that of the Immersionists 
themselves, which proves they do not believe it. 

(c.) On these principles it would be unlawful to 
baptize females when born again ; because the fe- 
male children of Abraham, who, according to our 
author, are the types of regenerated females, were 
not circumcised. 

(d.) If, as our author declares, circumcision alone 
introduced the natural children of Abraham into the 
Jewish church, then no female ever was a member 
of that Church. This is contrary to a thousand re- 
corded facts, and proves our author's theory to be 
false. Baptism was initiatory then as now, and fe- 
males were introduced by baptism. No one at any 
time could visibly enter the kingdom without being 
born of water. Circumcision sealed one's faith in 
the promise that the Son of God should be born of 
the seed of Abraham ; and it taught that he was not 
to be begotten by man, but by the power of the 
Holy Ghost. Baptism always sealed one's faith in 
the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, and on 
that account it has always been regarded as initiatory. 
From the earliest times it was administered to in- 
fants, without regard to sex, and still continues so 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 57 

to be administered. "We have abundantly proved 
already that infant baptism was administered at 
least as early as the days of Jacob, and has been 
continued without intermission to the present time. 

(e.) Our author would do well, while railing on 
Judaism, to remember that baptism was the most 
prominent ordinance in that system, and no ordi- 
nance was more abused. Most of the Levitical or- 
dinances ceased at the coming of the Saviour ; be- 
cause, as types, they were fulfilled ; and could be of 
no further use. But baptism, pointing to the for- 
giveness of sins, has for us the same significancy as 
for them. Ancient saints believed and were bap- 
tized, and their children also, and ever since, in every 
age, men believe and are baptized, and why should 
not the children be still baptized as formerly ? 

(f.) Although our author's theory, making Abra- 
ham's adult children the types of adult believers, 
and his infant children the types of newly-converted 
persons, addresses itself pleasantly enough to the 
fancy, it has nothing for the understanding. It is at 
variance with all the facts in the case. It is a 
glorious truth that the children of Abraham were 
typical — they were in the house of bondage — they 
passed through the sea, the wilderness, the Jordan, 
and entered Canaan. All this is admitted to be 
typical ; but to descend, as our author does, to point 
out the representative character of each particular 
class, and individual, is as fanciful as to attempt to 



58 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

show the typical character of the roots, tendrils, 
leaves, buds, bark and fibres of the vine; because 
Jesus chose it and its branches to illustrate the liv- 
ing union between him and believers. He also 
chose the ripe harvest of standing corn as an illus- 
tration of the condition of the world in relation to 
the preaching of the gospel ; but it would be deemed 
very fanciful to take license from that fact to spirit- 
ualize the dry blades, chaff, beards, and stubble. 

(g.) Dr. H. says : " A correspondence exists in 
several respects between circumcision and baptism ;" 
and although he allows both to be initiatory, he can- 
not think that they should correspond in respect to 
introducing infants visibly into the church ! But 
if he admit that they correspond in any respect, why 
deny that they do in this ? Indeed, he is hard 
pressed here. His only alternative is to set forth 
the natural infants of Abraham as types of the 
spiritual infants of Christ. We should be pleased 
in the next edition of his " Evils of Infant Baptism," 
if the Doctor would show us what typifies the natu- 
ral children of believers ; since they compose a large 
part of the blessing promised not only to Abraham, 
but to other believers generally. He will surely be 
compelled to give up this theory. 

4. The next step in our author's progress is to 
attack the unity of the church in all ages. 

(a.) He asks. '' If they (the ancient and present 
church) were the same church, why did Christ deny 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 59 

it, when he told the Jews that his was a church uri' 
like theirs i"' We answer that we know of no such 
denial, and the Doctor will be again compelled to 
call in human authority to sustain his assertion. He 
gives no allusion to scriptural authority, and can 
give none. 

(b.) Note these words — " the Jewish church and 
the Christian church the same ! It is not the Epis- 
copalian, the Presbyterian, the Congregational, the 
Methodist^ nor any other Protestant church, since 
Judaized as all these churches are, tbey fall far 
short of the Jewish church. Only the Catholic is a 
tolerable copy of the original." Fie ! ^q ! upon the 
man 1 Where was his piety gone, when he wrote 
such word^ about the church that contained all the 
men of renowned faith in ancient days ? The church 
in which David and Asaph sang — the church in 
which Isaiah preached, and Job endured, and Jere- 
miah wept, and Daniel prayed — the church of God 
— the church with which Grod dwelt, to which God 
spake by urim and thummim, by prophets and wise 
men. This is the church of which, in the esteem 
of an Immersionist minister, the Roman Catholic is 
the only tolerable copy ! And why ? Because it 
contained infants ? Then, sir, don't go to heaven ; 
for you will find them there thick around the throne, 
and making a large part of the church in glory. But 
there is not an infant in hell, nor ^' the Baptist church." 



60 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

Show me how a single infant can enter either, and I 
will giye it tip, 

(c.) He asks again, " Why did Messiah deny it 
[the unity of the church] on another occasion, when 
he said : '' The law and the prophets [the Jewish 
church] continued until John, since whom the king- 
dom of heaven [the Christian church] is preached, 
and all men press into it/' 

Here he garbles and alters the Word of God so as 
to make it suit his case. The law and the prophets 
were not the Jewish, any more than the New Testa- 
ment and elders are '^ the Baptist,'^ church. The 
Saviour, in the words quoted, merely states where 
the dispensation of the law and the prophets termi- 
nated, and New Testament preaching began. He 
asserts that every man was pressing into the king- 
dom of God even then ; and our author and most 
of his church deny that the kingdom of God was 
come until the day of Pentecost. How could men 
be pressing into it, before it had come ? There is 
not a word in the Bible about organizing a new 
church at the close of John^s ministry. The gospel 
was preached to the very same church, which Christ 
found in existence when he came, and both Jesus 
and John baptized at the same time, receiving the 
baptized into the same church ; and yet John's min- 
istry belonged to the dispensation of the prophets, 
while Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. Here, 
then, the two dispensations were united, and the 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 61 

converts of both were received into the same church, 
which proves the unity, instead of the diversity, of 
the church. — See John, 3 : 22, and Matt. 21 : 31, 
32. 

(d.) Again, Dr. H. asks, " Why did Paul deny 
the identity of the Jewish and Christian churches by 
comparing the former to Hagar and her posterity, 
and the latter to Sarah and hers ?" 

Any one who will take the trouble to turn to Gral. 
4 : 24, &c., will see that Agar is not the Jewish 
churoh, but she answers to '' Jerusalem lolvch now 
is, and is in bondage with her children," refusing to 
believe the fulfilment of the law by the promised 
seed. Sarah, the free woman, and type of Jerusa- 
lem above, is the mother of all believers of both 
dispensations, and secures to all her posterity the 
right of introducing their infant offspring into the 
same church with themselves ; while Agar, the slave 
of her own unbelief, cuts off both herself and her 
children from the covenant of mercy, and trusts in 
vain external ablutions instead of the blood of 
sprinkling. Sarah and her infant children stand un- 
der the Abrahamic covenant, whose gracious bless- 
ings ^' came on the Grentiles through Jesus Christ ;" 
but Agar stands under the covenant of works in ex- 
ternal bondage. 

What shocking perversions of God's Word Im- 
mersionists do make in order to get round infant 
membership ! Just see how our author makes Agar 

6 



62 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

the mother of the Jewish church, when every one 
knows that she v\^as the mother of Tshmael, and Sarah 
was the mother of the Jews. When the Jews per- 
secuted, rejected and crucified the Great Seed, 
promised to Sarah, the mother of all believers, they 
joined themselves to persecuting Ishmael, and God 
cut them ofi* from his church. Then, says Paul, 
they were like Agar in bondage under unbelief. Fie I 
^e ! to represent Moses, and David, and Daniel, as 
the children of Agar ! and for no other reason than 
to escape infant baptism ! 

This concludes the evidence for two churches, both 
of which, I suppose, must be the one body and bride 
of Christ, and these proofs are plainly on the other 
side of the question. 

5. The next step in the progress of the woik be- 
fore us, is an attempt to prove that the covenant 
made with Abraham in Gen. xii. &c., was essentially 
different from that in the xvii. Let us first have our 
author's views in his own words; and then compare 
them with the Scriptures. " Abraham," he says, 
" was concerned in two covenants, which were made 
at difi'erent times, and related to difi"erent things. 
The former had regard to Christ, the latter to his 
natural posterity. The one was the covenant of 
grace^ the other tlte covenant of circumcision^ and 
,[they were] dissimilar in character. The covenant 
of the law [or circumcision] constituted the dispen- 
sation of Moses, and was the covenant of the Jewish 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 63 

ehurcli ; the covenant of the gospel (that made with 
Abraham before circumcision was instituted) is the 
covenant of grace and redemption, the covenant of 
the Christian church." The gospel covenant — was not 
really 'inade with Abraham, but — was '• confirmed to 
Abraham of God in Christ — it was previously made. 
The same covenant was announced to Adam in Eden. 
The covenant of circumcision was tnade^ in the true 
sense of that word, with Abraham^ tiventy-four years 
after the promise above referred to." These ex- 
tracts, it is hoped, will clearly show the present im- 
mersional view concerning the covenants. On these 
views I wish to offer the following remarks : 

(a.) This view is very different from that usually 
taken by Christians. The great body of the church 
have understood the Scriptures as teaching that God 
created Adam under the covenant of works compre- 
hended in the ten commandments — that God the 
Father and the Son entered into a compact for the 
redemption of sinners, which is, therefore, called the 
covenant of redemption — and that God in Christ 
has formed and published a new constitution for sin- 
ners who believe in Christ. However, let us appeal 
to the Bible. 

(b.) Our author says that the latter covenant 
found in Gen. 17th chapter, "was made with Abra- 
ham in the true sense of that word;" but that the 
former was merely confirmed to him. The Bible 
says of the latter, " I will make my covenant between 



64 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 



me and thee — I will establish my covenant between 
me and thee." — Gen. 17: 2, 7. 

Of the former J it says : " In the same day the 
Lord onade a covenant with Abraham." If, then, 
we make distinctions here, the latter must have the 
preference as to confirmation ; because it was estab- 
lished^ and the other was simpl3? made^ which is the 
very reverse of what our author declares. An ex- 
amination of the original will fully sustain this re- 
mark. So fearfully do men wander in the dark, when 
they forsake God's Word, and try to defend their 
theories by their own conceits. 

(a) But Br. H. and the Immersionists say that 
there were two covenants made with Abraham — the 
one of grace, the other of words — that they were 
" dissimilar in character" — the one '• had regard to 
Christ," the other "to Abraham's natural posterity." 
Let us see Tvhat the Bible says about this point. 



THE FORMER. 

Gen. 12 : 2.—'' I will make 
of thee a great nation." 

13 : 16.—" And I will 

make thy seed as the dust of 
the earth : so that if a man 
can number the dust of the 
earth, then shall thy seed be 
numbered also." 



THE LATTER. 

Gen. lY: 2, 4.— "I will 

multiply thee exceedingly, 
and thou shalt be a father 
of many nations." — Gal. 3: 
17, 18. 

17 : 6.—" I will make 

thee exceeding fruitful, and 
I will make nations of thee, 
and kings shall come out of 
thee."— Rom. 4: IT. 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
THE FORMER. THE LATTER. 



65i 



15: 5. — "Look now 
toward heaven, and tell the 
stars, if thou be able to num- 
ber them ; and he said unto 
him, so shall thy seed be." — 
Rom. 4: 18. 

Gen. 12: 3.— "I will bless 
them that bless thee, and 
curse him that curseth thee." 

12: 1.—'' Get thee out 

of thy country, and from thy 
kindred, and from thy fa- 
ther's house, unto a land that 
I shall show thee." 

12: Y._"Unto thy 

seed will I give this land." 

13: 15.— "All the 

land whicli thou seest, to 
thee will I give it, and to 
thy seed forever." 

15: 18.— "Unto thy 

seed have I given this land 
from the river of Egypt to 
the great river, the river 
Euphrates." 



lY: 16.— "I will 

bless her (Sarah), and she 
shall be a mother of na- 
tions." 

Gen. lY: 7.— "I will be a 
God to thee and thy seed 
after thee."— Heb. 11: 16. 

lY: Y, 8.— "And I 

will establish my covenant 
between me and thee, and 
thy seed after thee in their 
generations for an everlast- 
ing covenant, and I will give 
unto thee and thy seed after 
thee the land wherein thou 
art a stranger — all the land 
of Canaan for an everlasting 
possession, and I will be 
their God." 



Let tbe reader notice that, in both transactions, 
the land of Canaan is distinctly granted to Abraham 
and his seed forever. Let him also notice that in 
both Abraham receives the promise of an innumer- 
able posterity. Let him then read Romans, 4th 



66 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 

chap.y and Gal.^ 3d eliap., and notice how the Apos- 
tle quotes, in the same strain of argument, from one 
or the other of these interviews between God and 
Abraham ; and he will surely be convinced that the 
whole constitutes one and the same covenant, Biore 
and more developed. 

Notwithstanding these luminous facts stand blaz- 
ing in the Bible, Dr. H. and the Immersionist church 
declare^ in the work before us, that there were " two 
covenants dissimilar in their character J^—T)\2ii in 
Gen. 17th, " nothing whatever is said regarding Mes- 
siah.'^ — That this covenant is distinguished from the 
other by the promise '' that his descendants should 
be numerous, prosperous, and happy; in the second 
place, that they should possess a specified terri- 
tory," &c., all of which the reader ,iees for himself 
is as distinctly promised in chs. 12, 13 and 15, as m 
ch. 17. What is to be thought^ and said^ of a man 
who will write statements contrary to the very letter 
of the Bible, and of a church which will print and 
circulate them before heaven ! Shame I eternal 
shame 1 Can it be wilful perversion 1 how is it ? 

Our author acknowledges that the covenant re- 
corded in the 12th, 13th, 15th and 22d chs, ''is the 
covenant of grace in Christ Jesus — [and] has bap- 
tism annexed," which, however, '^ was not visibly ad- 
ministered until after the law.^^ He surely has for- 
gotten that Jesus began his ministry, and preached 
the kingdom of God, and baptized before the close 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 67 

of Jolm's ministrj. So lie is wrong, even granting 
his own ground. Bat when we remember that every 
promise found in Gen. 17th cb., where circumcision 
is instituted, was made to Abraham before, and that 
circumcision is merely added as the seal of faith in 
these promises, that faith under the gospel, or new 
covenant, has always been reckoned for righteousness 
unto the justification of sinners, and that the Immer- 
sionists, with all their hatred of infant baptism, are 
compelled by the burning light of the Bible, to ad- 
mit that baptism was annexed to the covenant prom- 
ising Abraham a numerous posterity and the land of 
Canaan — Gren. r2th ch. — we have the highest assur- 
ance that infant baptism is scriptural. We see also 
how vain is the attempt to make a distinction where 
there is no difference. The promises are in the same 
words throughout the intercourse between God and 
Abraham, and if baptism be annexed to the promise 
in the twelfth chapter — " I will make of thee a great 
nation [and] unto thy seed will I give this land" — 
it must also be annexed to the promise in the seven- 
teenth — " I will make thee exceeding fruitful [and] 
I will give to thee and thy seed after thee all the 
land of Canaan." From this conclusion the Immer- 
sionists can never escape. They admit, in their own 
book, that baptism is annexed to the first promise, 
and, of course, it must be annexed to the other, con- 
veying the same idea, and in almost the same words, 
and they are at last forced to the admission that, if 

6* 



68 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

the covenant, in chapter seventeenth, still obtains, in- 
fant baptism must follow of course. Then let them 
notice that it is established for an '' everlasting cov- 
enant," and both it and the former grant to Abra- 
ham and his seed the " land of Canaan for an ever- 
lasting possession !" The prophets tell us also that 
Israel shall yet be gathered to that very land, and 
again possess their ancient inheritance according to 
this promise. Either, then, there is but one covenant, 
and infant baptism is secure ; or there will be two 
covenants having the very same promises, and both 
administered at the same time, and infant baptism 
safe under one of them. So infant baptism stands 
secure, do as they will, unless they recede from their 
own admission. 

Dr. H. further says, '' Circumcision and baptism 
are both types; but they are not the same type in 
different forms, since circumcision, according to Paul, 
was a type of regeneration by the Spirit, and 
baptism, as John avers, is a representation, or type, 
of the burial and resurrection of Christ." — 1 John, 
5:8. I see no proof in the passage cited that bap- 
tism is a type " of the burial and resurrection of 
Christ." Be this as it may, the Doctor admits that 
circumcision is '' a type of regeneration by the Spirit," 
and the same Paul also teaches that ^^ he saved us 
by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost." — Tit. 3 : 5. Then baptism is also a 
type of regeneration. If one type of regeneration 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 69 

was applied to infants, why may not the other ? 
Again — The Doctor elsewhere admits that " baptism 
is the seal of faith," and Paul says (Rom. 4: 11) 
that circumcision was also ^' a seal of the righteous- 
ness of faith." If one seal of faith be applied to 
infants, why may not the other ? 

In the conclusion of this chapter, our author grows 
warm, and very properly exhorts us to " cast out the 
bond-woman and her son." This, by the grace of 
God, we purpose to do. Doctor, will you also open 
the door, and take in the free woman and her little 
Isaac ? It is a hard-hearted practice you Immer- 
sionists have, of shutting out the lambs of the flock. 
The poor little things are exposed to dogs and wolves 
without. Open the door, and take them in. The 
dear little creatures are hungry without, and they 
belong to the kingdom and fold of Christ. Let them 
come in and be nourished by their mothers. Give 
them food and drink, that they may grow thereby in 
the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Dear little 
ones ! what have they done to shut them out ? Im- 
mersionists are the only shepherds in God's universe 
that shut out the lambs ! It is unnatural. It is 
cruel. It wounds the Saviour. He loved them. 
He took them in his arms. He blessed them, and 
said they belong to his kingdom. Then baptize 
them, as you do all the rest who belong to his king- 
dom. Don't make your church childless like the dark 
world of woe. Make it bright and joyful, like heaven, 



70 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

with infant songs. Ifc is a great corruption of the 
gospel church to pervert its covenant so as to shut 
our dear little children out of the pale of the cov- 
enant, and to exclude them from the visible assembly 
of the saints. You need not circumcise them now. 
The Saviour has come, and all that pointed as type 
to him is fulfilled and set aside. But baptism in his 
name yet prevails. They have the name of their 
earthly father by birth. Give them the name of 
their heavenly Father in a birth h^ water. That 
name will do them more good than their earthly 
father's name ; and you would deem it a great mis- 
fortune for your son to be deprived of your name. 
Then don't cheat him out of his Saviour's name. 



CHAPTER IV. 



"IKFANT BAPTISM IS AN EYIL ; BECAUSE IT FALSIFIES THE 
DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL DEPRAYITT." 



In resuming our review of this v/ork, the reader 
may find it to his advantage to recollectj that Dr. 
Howell attempts in the preceding chapter to show, 
that there were two distinct covenants established 
with Abraham, one of which he calls ^' the covenant 
of grace," and admits that it is perpetual, and '' has 
baptism annexed " as its seal. The other he calls 
" the covenant of the law," and says that circum- 
cision was its seal. This is new ground, an original 
discovery, and is the keystone of the Doctor's arch, 
the fundamental principle of the whole book. '' The 
old Baptists " used to consider the covenant as one; 
but denied the perpetuity of its obligation. They con- 
tended that the covenant was a political arrangement, 
relating entirely to the Jewish state. From this 
ground they were beaten by force of arms, and com- 
pelled to retreat in the direction of Jordan. The 
burning edge of Paul's sword forced them to capitu- 



72 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

late, and confess that " they which be of faith are 
blessed with faithful Abraham — and if ye be Christ's, 
then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
the promise. Therefore it is of faith, that it might 
be by grace ; to the end that the promise might 
be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which 
IS OF THE Law, but to that also which is of 
THE FAITH OF Abraham." I Say the sword of Paul 
drove the old Baptists from the position that the 
covenant was temporal, and related only to the Jews. 
But our modern Dippers of new translation propen- 
sity and notoriety, have made another intrenchment. 
They tell us there were two covenants made with 
Abraham, the one carnal and temporal — '' the cove- 
nant of the law " — confined to the Jews, and having 
circumcision as its seal; the other " the covenant of 
grace," which '' has baptism annexed." But the 
sword of the Lord and of Paul is still upon them. 
Paul truly declares that there were '' two covenants," 
but he tells us plainly that one of them is '' from the 
mount Sinai,'-' and is typified by Agar, the bond- 
maid, and the other is ^' the promise" given to 
Abraham, and is typified by Sarah, the free woman; 
and all believing Christians '' are the children of 
promise " in the same sense that Isaac was.* Dr. 
Howell and the Dippers say the two covenants were 
given to Abraham ; but Paul says the covenant of 
grace was given to him, and that of the law was 
* Gal. 4; 22-30. 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 73 

given to Moses at mount Sinai, four hundred and 
thirty years afterward ! So doctors will differ, and 
there is a wide difference between Howell and Paul. 
We have no fears for the issue. Paul stands aloft 
on mount Zion, and Howell, with the Dippers, is re- 
treating down the dark valley of the Jordan. But 
they must not escape. The interests of the King, 
who claims little children as heirs of his covenant, 
and members of his kingdom, require us to pursue 
them in the same spirit of divine conquest with the 
sword of the Lord and of Paul. 

They confess that the " covenant of grace " given 
to Abraham '^ has baptism annexed,'' but they deny 
that infants are included in that covenant ; and thus 
endeavor to escape the conclusion, that infants are 
to be baptized. But in the chapter before us we 
have a labored effort to prove the doctrine of univer- 
sal and total depravity, and that infants are partakers 
of that depravity. Now, admitting all this to be 
proved, it follows irresistibly that infant sinners are 
saved by grace^ or they are not saved at all. But 
if they are not within the covenant of grace, they 
cannot be saved by grace, because the covenant can- 
not operate beyond its own limits; and therefore in- 
fant sinners cannot be saved. But if infants are 
saved by grace, they are plainly within the operation 
of the covenant of grace ; and if, as Dr. H. admits, 
'Hhe covenant of grace has baptism annexed," in- 
fants being within the operation of that covenant, 

7 



74 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

are entitled to baptism ; and it is a fearful breach of 
the covenant for parents to refuse or neglect it. 
Then, by their own admissions, the Dippers are 
forced to take infant baptism, or infant damnation ; 
and the Bible commands them to take infant bap- 
tism. Put away, then, the human notion of dipjiing^ 
and take plain Bible baptism. Then you will not 
be afraid of drowning your infants, and when that 
fear is gone, you can see that the " covenant of 
grace," which " has baptism annexed," embraces your 
children, and they can be saved, and ought to be 
baptized. 

But again. In this device to escape the doctrine 
of infant baptism, the Doctor and the Dippers tell 
us that circumcision was not annexed to the cove- 
nant of grace given to Abraham, but to the covenant 
of the law. Here the divine sword is upon them 
again ; for it is certain that circumcision was given 
to Abraham the father of the faithful, and to Isaac, 
the free-born son of promise, and heir of all the 
blessings promised to Abraham. If the law had 
circumcision, it was borrowed from the covenant. 
Although embraced in the law, it was not of the law. 
It was given as soon as there was an heir to inherit 
the promises. It foreshadowed the fundamental^ 
truth that Messiah was to descend from the great 
patriarch in the female line by the power of the 
Holy Ghost,- without being begotten by man. It 
was " a seal of the righteousness of faith," and " the 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 75 

law is not of faith."* Notice — it is '' a seal " — that 
is, one seal ; for baptism was another seal of the 
same covenant. Then, it is plain that our author 
in taking the position that circumcision, which is 
near four hundred years older than the law, was of 
the law, is egregiously mistaken, and is again com- 
pelled to retreat before the sword of the Lord and 
of Paul, and where he will make his next intrench- 
ment remains to be seen. It is plain that if infant 
baptism ever be disproved. Dr. H. must write a new 
book, and take ground entirely different. In his 
next work he must prove that baptism is not annexed 
to the covenant of grace, or that all dying in infancy, 
being beyond the operation of the covenant of grace, 
are eternally damned in hell for sins which they 
never committed. I forewarn him that either prop- 
osition will be hard to sustain; and he would do 
well to surrender at discretion to the power of divine 
truth, and cease from his feeble warfare. 

If I have attained any definite understanding of 
the book under review, its fundamental principle is 
here demonstrated to be opposed to the Scriptures, 
and the key-stone of its arch is broken to pieces. In 
the light now afforded, it will be easy to dispose of 
all the vapor found in the fourth compartment of 
this strange conception. 

Here our author lays out a large amount of gra- 
tuitous labor to prove that all men are sinners, and 
Rom. iv. 11. Gral. iii. 12. 



76 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

that everybody believes tliat all men are sinnerg, 
and that all infants are as deeply depraved as any 
others. After all this, he comes forth in great 
authority with the startling announcement, that infant 
baptism " falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity." 
This is certainly one of the strangest conceits that 
ever was cherished by a sane man. If baptism 
had been appointed as an ordinance of sinless angels, 
and we applied it to infants, he might say with some 
face, that in administering it to infants, we deny 
their sinfulness. But when it is admitted by him- 
self, and all Christians, that it is an emblematic 
washing away of sin, and he knows, and quotes these 
views from every quarter, and still charges on this 
ordinance the denial of human depravity, heavenly 
charity itself must pronounce such shuffling and quib- 
bling to evade the truth as utterly unworthy of a 
child of God. When Dr. Howell dips a man in 
water for baptism, does he mean to deny that that 
man is a partaker of the common corruption of our 
nature ? Is this the view of all those who are cir- 
culating his book ? Shame ! shame upon you ! can 
you get nothing better than this to circulate ? Then 
quit, and go home. Baptism proves that a man is 
not depraved ! ! How, then, can it prove that an in- 
fant is not depraved 1 Fio ! fie ! 

But our author and his party shall speak in their 
own words. They say, ^' We see in the children of 
all classes the same inclination to evil, and the same 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 77 

estraDgement from God, more or less strougly de- 
veloped. The cluldren of religious parents are in- 
volved in the same depravity to an extent fully as 
great as those of others." '' Our brethren, them- 
selves, notwithstanding the doctrine of the holiness 
of the children of believers, maintain and emphat- 
ically teach universal depravity. They earnestly 
teach, that the children of believers are federally 
holy, and for these and like reasons, are baptized. 
Persons cannot have, at birth, all these endowments, 
and be at the same time wholly corrupt. Are such 
corrupt and depraved persons holy ? Are they born 
members of the church ? Are they naturally inher- 
itors of all the blessings of the covenant of grace ? 
It is impossible. Both these propositions cannot be 
true. The one falsifies the other." Such, and much 
more, is their language on this point. 

The chief difficulty here seems to be in reconciling 
the facts of depravity and holiness in the same per- 
sons. To a reader of the Bible, one would not sup- 
pose this would be a great task. I should think 
any plain Dipper could easily explain to us how the 
same people could be a '^ holy nation," and still be 
both ^'stiff-necked" and '^rebellious" — how the 
^' holy seed," contrary to the divine command, 
*' mingled themselves " with other people, — how Paul 
could say, " Else were your children unclean, but 
now are they holy." If the Dippers do not under- 
stand how to reconcile such simple statements of the 

17* 



78 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

Bible as these, thej will find it a healtliful exercise 
to study it a little, and then they will cease to com- 
plain of our contradicting ourselves in such state- 
ments. But our Doctor may go back to his own 
third chapter and read his own dissertation on the 
words of Paul, calling the children of believers 
" holy," till he can understand how such a one can be 
holy and still depraved. 

In his own words, just quoted, he declares that 
the infants of believers are as deeply depraved as 
others, and in his third chapter he admits Paul very 
properly calls them holy^ and now he comes to us 
with the annunciation, that this is contradictory,-^ 
" The one falsifies the other." He must be very for- 
getful. Pity that one whose memory is so bad as to 
forget his own words so soon, should undertake to 
enlighten the world by book-making. 

As to the complaint that corrupt and depraved 
infants are members of the church, I remark, that 
there is surely no evidence that they possess more 
corruption or depravity than many who are dipped 
into the church of Immersionists. If one can be 
dipped into the church and still possess so much 
depravity and darkness, as to declare that men and 
infants cannot be holy, while subjects of a sinful 
nature, I cannot see why innocent babes may not be 
baptized into the visible kingdom of our Lord. As 
to their being born in the church, it is obvious to 
common sense, that if the parents are members of 



EVILS OF DR. HOTl'ELL. 79 

the church at the birth of the. children, the children 
must be born in the church. This is a simple, un- 
deniable fact. It can no more be controverted 
than the fact, that all children are born members of 
that community of which their parents are members. 
To talk of the children of church members being 
born out of the church, is as absurd as to say that 
the children of Americans can be born Europeans, 
or Asiatics. But the fact of their being born within 
the visible church, no more argues that they are 
born of the spirit, than the fact of immersion and 
membership with Dippers proves any one to be 
spiritually regenerated. 

Our author proceeds next to notice " two other 
collateral and disastrous consequences " of infant 
baptism. " The former is the absurdity^ that religion 
is hereditary ; and the latter, that children of be- 
lievers have no need of the regenerating influences 
of the spirit of God !" 

He argues that if the children of believers are 
heirs of spiritual blessings by virtue of their birth, 
religion must be conveyed by regular generation, and 
of course there can be no need of regeneration by the 
divine spirit. The reasoning would be exactly the 
same, if some Asiatic should say, " Inasmuch as 
Americans believe, that by virtue of their birth their 
children are heirs to all the blessings of American 
freemen, there can be no need for deeds of convey- 
ance and for teachers in America; because property 



80 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

and education, with all their attendant blessings, 
are conveyed by natural generation !" 

God save the people from the policy and the logic 
of Dippers ! All men know that by birth children 
become heirs to all the possessions of their parents ; 
but who else than a Dipper would ever think of con- 
veying a house, a tract of land, or even an education, 
to a child by natural generation ? ! ! 

As property is conveyed to the heir by title-deeds, 
and education, with its train of blessings, is conveyed 
by long, patient and laborious teaching, and God's 
blessing; so the inheritance of heaven, the comforts 
of religion, the faith of the gospel, the renewal of the 
heart, and all that appertains to the salvation of the 
soul, are conveyed to the heirs of glory by means of 
direct instruction, and especially by pious example 
in reading the holy Scriptures, in daily thanksgiving, 
praise, confession, and prayer to God, and in the 
regular discharge of all the duties of religion in 
presence of the children, with the addition of God's 
blessing in all these things. So religion forms no 
exception to the rules of common sense. The in- 
heritance is by birth, and the conveyance by instruc- 
tion, with God's blessing. No man can deny but the 
children of the pious enjoy great advantages in these 
respects. God himself explains the manner of con- 
veyance; when speaking of Abraham, he says, ^' For 
I know him, that he will command his children and 
his household after him, and they shall keep the way 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 81 

of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the 
Lord may bring upon Abraham that ivliich he hath 
spoken of him}^ — Gen. 18 : 19. Here it is plain 
that while birth makes the children heirs^ instruction 
with the divine blessing makes the conveyance ; and 
there is not a word about conveying God's blessing 
by " natural generation," as the Dippers improperly 
allege- 
When men professing Christianity, under guise of 
searching for truth, employ all their ingenuity to per- 
vert and ridicule doctrines they cannot confute, men 
of the world who scorn such trickery, become scep- 
tical, and Christ bleeds at every pore with sorrows ex- 
ceeding death itself Dr. Howell knows very well 
that no Pedo-baptist ever advocated the doctrine that 
religion is conveyed by " natural generation," and if 
he can review this chapter of his book without com- 
punction and shame, it must stand as a melancholy 
demonstration of the alarming hardness of heart 
which he has acquired by trifling with truth while 
professing to give a true account of the sentiments 
of others. 

The next example is in these words—'' Pedo bap- 
tists allege, that the children of the flesh of believ- 
ers, are the heirs of the covenant, and for the very 
reason that they are the children of the flesh." It 
is difficult to conceive any excuse for sophistry so 
glaring as this. In the first member of the sentence 
the children of believers are represented as the heirs 



82 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

of the covenant, and in the second member /az^^ is 
not only kept out of view, but the reason of this 
heirship is expressly referred to ih.Q flesh. Nor can 
he here mean the literal flesh. The word is used 
also to denote the corrupt propensities of our nature, 
and our author so uses it here in order to cast odium 
on the doctrine, that the children of believers are 
heirs of the covenant. This is plain from the fact 
that he is here discussing the relations of Ishmael 
and Isaac to the covenant; and it is impossible but 
our author knows that Isaac descended as literally 
from the literal flesh of Abraham as did Ishmael. 
Then he would make the child of unbridled lust an 
equal heir with the child of promise ! All this in 
the face of known facts, not because he believes it, 
noi because he supposes we believe it ; but out of 
simple malice, to cast odium, in view of the ignorant, 
on a subject which he feels unable to confute. If 
Dippers desire to retain so much of the respect of 
their opponents as will give them any power for 
good over them, and to convince the world that they 
love truth^ it is time they were learning to give 
views of others with candor, and to meet them with 
argument rather than ridicule. It will require but 
little study for any man to make the proper distinc- 
tions between birth and education, blood and exam- 
ple, an heir and a possessor, a literal birth within 
the visible church and regeneration by the Spirit, the 
bastard of a slave and the child of promise in wedlock. 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 83 

In conclusion, let me give a short extract merely 
as a sample of the railing of the author and his com- 
peers : '' If the infant children of believing parents 
are 'holy,' are 'in the covenant of grace/ are 'born 
in the church,' then, of course, their nature is pure. 
The work of the Spirit is not necessary to cleanse 
their hearts and fit them for a higher life. — All this 
they are carefully taught from childhood. Are they 
not likely to believe it ? If they do, they cannot 
also believe that they have a depraved and corrupt 
heart. Thus infant baptism inculcates a religion 
that is neither moral nor spiritual, but merely phys- 
ical. It is therefore a most revolting evil. 

In opposition to all this bluster, I place the public 
and known morality and spiritual religion of Pedo- 
baptists and their children ; nor do I at all fear the 
result of a comparison in these respects with Dippers 
and their children. 



CHAPTEE V. 

" INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE THE DOCTRINES UPON 
WHICH IT RESTS CONTRADICT THE GREAT FUNDAMENTAL 
PRINCIPLE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH." 

Infant baptism plainly rests on the representa- 
tive character of the believing parent ; and I was 
curious, on reading the caption of this chapter, to see 
what stratagem would be employed by our wily Dip- 
per to exhibit even the appearance of a contradiction 
between the representative character of parents and 
the doctrine of justification by faith. But not a word 
upon that point is to be found in all the chapter ! 
What, then, the reader will ask, is the course of the. 
argument? Well, in the first place we have a toler- 
ably correct statement of the doctrine of justification 
by faith. Then follow some bold assertions that 
infant baptism supplanted the doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith, and introduced all the corruptions of 
popery ; but not a shred of proof is offered. Then 
Luther's experience is detailed with a short account 
of the reformation from popery. In the next place 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 85 

our author quotes largely from " the creeds of the 
Protestant sects," in order to prove that thev all be- 
lieve the doctrine of justification by faith. After- 
wards he quotes from the same creeds to prove that 
they all believe that baptism regenerates and justi- 
fies infants, and then concludes as might be expected. 

To set him right here it will be necessary to notice 
but a few examples of the many that tend to the same 
point. 

In speaking of the ''formularies" of ''all the 
Protestant sects," he says : " Infant baptism finds a 
place there, sustained by all the doctrines with which 
popery had surrounded it." Does Dr. Howell be- 
lieve that Protestants baptize infants with the sign 
of the cross, salt, priest's spittle ? &c. If he does 
believe it, he is too ignorant to deserve credit. If 
he does not believe it, he alone has the right to ex- 
plain why he uses the words " sustained by all the 
doctrines with which popery has surrounded it." 

But he proceeds, with many protestations of can- 
dor, to give his readers a true statement of the doc- 
trines of " the Protestant sects," by veracious ex- 
tracts from their several creeds, showing that they 
all believe that baptism both regenerates and pro- 
cures pardon to both adults and infants. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith says, that 
baptism is " a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, 
of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God 
through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life. 

8 



86 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

By the right use of this ordinance the grace prom- 
ised is not only offered, but really exhibited and con- 
ferred." . 

In a note to the word ^' exhibited," the Doctor 
says, " Used in the technical sense of the Latin ex- 
hibere^ to apply or convey." 

On this note I would remark — 1. The Latin ex- 
hihere has no such meaning, technical or otherwise, 
as any one may see for himself by consulting a Latin 
dictionary. It means to show^ to represent^ &c., as 
does its English derivative. 2. It is a scandalous 
piece of indecency to attempt thus to deceive the 
confiding illiterate of his own party. 3. Such con- 
duct is as wicked as it is dishonorable. 4. There 
are several convincing proofs that the author is 
aware of all these facts. 

As to the quotation from the Westminster Con- 
fession of Faith, it is only necessary to call the at- 
tention of the reader to three observations : 

L If the declaration that baptism is a sign of 
remission of sins, &c., proves that those who adopt 
it believe that baptism procures pardon of sin, then, 
on precisely the same principle, those who believe 
that dipping is a sign of the death, burial, and res- 
urrection of Jesus Christ, must believe that dipping 
kills, buries, and makes alive. This view gives to 
dipping more of the prerogatives of God than those 
ascribed to baptism, even by our censorious author. 
If there be no difference between being the sign of 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 87 

a thing and effecting that thing, then truly to say 
that baptism is '' the sign of remission of sins," and 
of " his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to 
walk in newness of life," must be the same as to say 
that baptism renews our sinful nature and justifies 
our souls from all sin. Then the 52^-?2-board at the 
forks of the road is the road itself, and we may 
travel hundreds of miles on that short sign ; and 
red clouds in the morning are storms of wind and 
rain, while red clouds in the evening are calm and 
beautiful sunshine ! Of course, when dipping is a 
sign of death, it kills the old man of sin ; and when 
it is a sign of the resurrection, it renews the spirit 
unto life eternal, and when it refers to Christ in death 
or life, it is Christ ; and this accounts for the wor- 
ship paid to it by some of its devotees. 

2. Our opponents seem to feel particular dislike 
to the teaching gf the Westminster Assembly, when 
they say, ^' By the right use of this ordinance the 
grace promised is not only offered, but really exhib- 
ited and conferred." 

But if the grace promised and offered in baptism 
be not " exhibited" (represented, shown,) and '' con- 
ferred" upon the recipient ^' by the right use of this 
ordinance," it will certainly be hard to show when 
such grace will be bestowed. If the promised grace 
does not come in the right use of baptism, it must 
in the wrong %ise of it, or never. Nor can I see 
what all this quibbling means, unless the Dippers 



88 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

intend to saj, that the grace promised in baptism is 
conferred only on those who neglect it altogether, or 
on those who so misuse the ordinance as to substitute 
dipping for it, and that with a view of killing the 
flesh and raising the spirit to life. As this view 
would expel from the scheme of salvation both the 
atonement of Christ and the renewing of the spirit, 
it proposes emphatically a lorong use of the ordi- 
nance ; and if the blessing is not to be attained '' by 
the right use of this ordinance," it must come by 
some such lorong use^ or by entire neglect of it. 

If such be not the meaning of the Dippers in com- 
plaining of the right use of baptism, it belongs to 
themselves to state definitely what they do mean. 

3. But the sly deceit of our author in attempting 
to fasten on the Westminster As-sembly the odious 
doctrines of baptismal justification and baptismal 
regeneration, appears in glaring colors, if we turn to 
the 28th chapter of the Confession of Faith, from 
which he makes the quotations under consideration. 
Between the two quotations made by him, stand 
these words : ^' Although it be a great sin to contemn 
or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are 
not so inseparably annexed to it, as that no person 
can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all 
that are baptized, are undoubtedly regenerated." 
One w^ho, by garbling quotations and purposely sup- 
pressing the words of a book can attempt, before the 
public, to falsify its teaching for the purpose of in- 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 89 

juring others rather than to benefit himself, may 
serve the interests of a party, and be sustained by 
it ; but the impartial tribunal of the God of truth 
will be swayed by no such influence. The author 
should solemnly pause to inquire how far this con- 
duct agrees with the ninth commandment. 

In the quotations of our author from the '^ Thirty- 
nine Articles," and from the '^ Methodist Articles of 
Keligion," baptism is said to be '^ a sign of regener- 
ation," &c., and to answer his allegations here would 
be merely a repetition of what has been said. 

Yet, from the simple declaration that baptism is a 
*' sign of regeneration," our author declares that all 
the Protestant sects in their " confessions" teach, 
therefore, the justification of the sinner by baptism. 
*• The child, therefore, in baptism, is pardoned of 
sin, is regenerated, is adopted, is received into the 
church, received into the favor of Grod, and is sav- 
ed," and he might just as well have continued — 
And when you obtain the merchants sign over his 
door^ you have got him^ vnth his clerks^ books^ cash^ 
goods^ house and all. What a grand conception ! 

But our author asks — '' Do I deal justly with the 
several sects?" Yes; the proof of his justice is 
found in the fact that Moehler, a Roman Catholic, 
said that the Augsburg Confession so expressed it- 
self on this point as " to enable Catholics to declare 
themselves tolerably satisfied with it." Dr. H. 
knows very well that few of the Protestants of this 

8* 



90 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

country receive the doctrine of the Augsburg Con- 
fession on this point. He knows that they declare a 
different doctrine ; and still he does not scruple be- 
fore the intelligence of the world to saddle them 
with a doctrine so repugnant to their published 
creeds. 

Still he acknowledges himself that they ^^ continue 
to protest that they do not attribute to baptism any 
justifying or saving power." But he continues : 
" Do they not ? I have fairly recited the very wcn'ds 
of their Confession of Faith. "^"^ No, Doctor, you 
have ^'-fairly recited" no such thing — you suppressed, 
in the midst of your quotation, the very words that 
deny the charges you are making, and you falsified 
the words you quoted by telling the people that 
" exhibit" means " to apply or convey'' ! ! ! and by 
saying that the words '-'• baptism is a sign of regener- 
ation," &c., mean that baptism regenerates, justifies, 
&c. Fie ! fie ! upon you for it ; and by the way of 
showing ^' the sects" what sort of man you are, I 
will close the review of this chapter with a few of 
your amiable words. " But Presbyterians, Congre- 
gationalists, and Methodists, do not surely believe 
these baptismal doctrines ! Many of them, I admit, 
earnestly deny it. Grladly would we credit their dis- 
avowals. They deny that they believe these doc- 
trines, and yet they continue to publish them to the 
world. They deny^ they affirm^ they again deny, 
and again ajQirm. The same contradictions which so 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 91 

strikingly mark their Confessions and Catechisms, 
we find pervading all their teachings and practice;" 
and thus you go tottering along for four pages of 
simple railing, frequently approaching to buffoonery, 
and sometimes to scurrility. I am sincerely ashamed 
to see a professing Christian behave thus before the 
world. 



CHAPTER VI. 



" INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT 
WITH THE DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION BY THE HOLY SPIRIT." 



In this chapter we have little else than a repeti- 
tion of the same matter reviewed in the last. Here 
the Dippers are iiaformed that their '' brethren of 
all the Protestant denominations teach that %ve are 
regenerated by the Sjnrit of God^ and thejalso teach 
that we are regenerated by baptis7n /" — Baptism 
and regeneration are not now esteemed by them 
as separate and distinct things, but are declared es- 
sentially identical. This statement is not hazarded 
carelessly. It is made after mature thought and full 
investigation. I am aware it is not a light imputa- 
tion. I shall therefore sustain it by the " amplest 
evidence ;" and where now is the '' amplest evidence" 
" in proof of so grave a proposition" ? AVhy — first. 
The Augsburg Confession says that " sin causes 
eternal death to those who are not born again by 
baptism and the Holy Spirit." Very well. Does 
that prove that we are regenerated in the same sense 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 93 

by baptism and the Holy Spirit? Our Lord says, 
*' Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of Grod." Does 
Jesus, then, teach regeneration by baptism and the 
Holy Spirit ? I think not ; nor do I think the 
words cited from the Augsburg Confession contain 
any such idea. If a man be born of water, he cer- 
tainly is born again ; though not from above. If 
one be born of the Spirit, he also is born again^ and 
born from above. Regeneration is a word used by 
Christians to denote the new birth by the grace of 
Grod. To confound that with the birth by water, 
evinces great ignorance, or displays the small arts of 
the sophist and pettifogger. The latter is true in 
this case. The very same low sophistry would con- 
vict the Divine Master of the same error charged on 
his humble followers. And this is the kind of ^' am- 
plest evidence" which a grave D. D. brings " in proof 
of so grave a proposition" ! 

2. ^' The Thirty-nine Articles embrace in sub- 
stance the declarations of the Augsburg Confession," 
and add, '' There is no condemnation to them that 
believe and are baptized." And does our grave 
Doctor think that these words contain the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration ? Does not the Saviour 
himself say, ^' He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved" ? Does He teach baptismal regeneration ? 
Reader, these words constitute the whole proof 
offered from the Thirty-nine Articles. It would 



94 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

seem that the Dippers believe that there is con- 
demnation to them that believe and are baptized. 
What do they mean in circulating this book % Do 
they mean to say \k\2X faith and baptism are of no 
avail unless a man be dipped ? I can make nothing 
else out of this language. 

3. '^ The Methodist Articles of Religion assert 
that baptism is a sign of regeneration, or the new 
birth." This is all of " the amplest evidence in 
proof of so grave a proposition" which is adduced 
against the Methodists ; and the quotation of such 

words in proof of that point " is a sign of" 

well, it is of no use — the Doctor will take privileges 
' — and — and — so he gets the present praise of his own 
party, he exercises little concern about consequences. 

The quotations from the Westminster Confession 
are the same that I remarked upon in the previous 
chapter. 

After his quotations from the " creeds," onr author 
takes a ramble among the writers of Christendom, 
and finds some high-church men with decided Catho- 
lic tendencies, who really do maintain the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration. The language of the 
rest he generally perverts in the same manner as he 
perverted the creeds. When an author says that 
baptism " denotes regeneration" — is the '• sign of 
regneration" — '' seals the covenant," &c., &c., he is 
set down as advocating regeneration by baptism. 
With the Dippers, to denote means to do^ a sign is 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 95 

the tiling itself^ a seal is the same thing exactly as 
the ohligation to which it is apjpended ; and to ex- 
hibit means to apply or convey. If G-od confers a 
blessing in connection with the right use of baptism, 
that means, with them, that God has nothing to do 
with it, but that baptism by itself confers that bless- 
ing. These are only a few examples of the fairness 
of Dippers towards the friends and advocates of 
Scriptural baptism. 

But I must give the reader another extract in the 
words of the author. It is this : " I have myself 
often heard them assure these same baptized children 
when grown up, who had been regenerated in their in- 
fancy, that they must yet be regenerated, or they could 
not be saved ! The attitude in which they are thus 
placed is most perplexing and pitiable. They sol- 
emnly declare to the world that they do not believe 
the very dogmas, that in their books they solemnly 
declare they do believe ! They repudiate them, and 
adhere to them. These are the teachings of the 
Confessions — the Bohemian, the Saxon, and all the 
others. Their lessons cannot readily be mistaken. 
The fact is now placed beyond a question, that 
whatever they may avow^ or maintain at other times ^ 
whenever this ordinance is in question, they all con- 
nect infant baptism and regeneration^ 

Now, reader, remember that these charges are 
made deliberately, after full investigation, and I 
have shown you all along the full results of this in- 



96 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

vestigation ! You will also decide in tte premises 
with what sincerity the author applies the words 
Christian hrethren^ to those against whom he prefers 
charges of such monstrous heresies, and such deceit 
in denying and avoiving these heresies ! He comes 
up with the sweet word brother on his lips, only that 
he may minister his blow with more certainty. I 
wish every reader to procure the book, and read it 
for himself ; for in the short space of a review I can 
give but a small idea of the amount of obloquy thrown 
on those who delight, in Grod's own appointed way, to 
acknowledge that their children belong to his kingdom. 
If in the division of " the great city" into " three 
parts," — Russia, France, and England — we have 
visible demonstration that the seventh angel has 
poured his '' vial into the air," it is a not less strik- 
ing fact that this irritating book is, as it were, sown 
broadcast over the land. There is in it nothing to 
convince — nothing even to puzzle one, who is only 
moderately acquainted with the Scriptures. To 
convince his opponents is plainly no part of his de- 
sign. The object before him appears on the very 
surface of the work. It is to rouse the hatred of 
his own church against all others, and to excite the 
prejudices of the world, so as to throw them beyond 
all religious influence from Pedo -baptists. He seems 
not to have conceived the idea, that the world is 
large enough to give scope and employment to the 
most enlarged zeal of Dippers, without offering any 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 97 

liinderancG to the good which others might do. No 
sign is more infallible than that the man who mis- 
represents his opponents, is conscious of his utter 
inability to meet them. 

Finally, the Dippers suppose that all our errors, 
alleged or imaginary, are the fruit of the misconcep- 
tion of the intention of baptism. They say, '• The 
Lord's Supper being commemorative of the suffer- 
ings and death of Christ, they thought that sufficient 
for Him, and so removed baptism from its legal 
place, as a concurring witness, and not only without 
authority, but expressly against authority, made it 
a witness, and significant of regeneration. Here the 
perversion commenced. The work of deterioration 
then rapidly progressed. With them baptism was 
now regeneration, and regeneration was baptism." 

Now, while more than nine- tenths of the Pe do- 
baptists utterly deny the charge of holding baptism 
and regeneration as the same thing, they do believe, 
as stated, that baptism is a sig7i and symbol, and 
figure, of regeneration, in the proper sense of these 
terms ; and as we are here charged with doing this 
*' without authority," we deem it proper to show our 
authority, such as it is. Then we set down the 
proposition to be sustained in these words : The gift 
of the Holy Ghost to renew., ][)urify and sanctify the 
heart., is symlolized by baptism ivith water. 

The following is some of the authority on which 
we rely. 

9 



98 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

Matt. 3 : 11, ^' I indeed baptize you with water ; 
but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.'' 
John, then, began this shocking corruption of the 
ordinance. He did not dijJ into ivater^ but baptized 
with it ; and then stated the contrast between his 
baptism and Christ's, to be not in the design, but in 
the substance employed,— Christ would baptize with 
the Holy Ghost ^ not to represent his own death, but 
the power of his life, transferred into the renewed 
heart. This is no dipping authority, to be sure ; 
but nothing the worse for that. See, also, Mai'k, 1 : 
8; Luke, 3 : 16; John, 1: 26. 

Ver. 14. ''I have need to be baptized of Thee, 
and comest thou to me ?" If John had understood 
baptism as referring to the death of Christ, what 
idea would he have had in refusmg to symbolize 
that death at the request of the Saviour ? It is as 
plain as daylight, that John viewed Jesus as more 
pure and holy than himself, and therefore desired 
to be cleansed and purified more thoroughly by Him. 

Acts, 1:5. " For John truly baptized with 
water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
not many days hence." Here again the baptism of 
water and of the Holy Ghost are placed as correl- 
ates, but not a word of allusion is made to the 
Saviour's death as the thing symbolized by either. 
Indeed, the living Spirit imparting divine life to 
man would be a very unsuitable emblem of death. 

Think ! just think, of the quickening Spirit of 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 99 

God as the emblem of a grave in whicli dead men are 
to be buried ! How revolting are the associations 
of immersion ! But bedewing baptism is the ap- 
propriate and beautiful emblem of the descending 
Spirit imparting new life to men, as the dews to 
vegetation. Nature and grace having the same 
Author, are much alike. 

Acts, 11 : 15, 16. "As I began to speak, the 
Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning, — 
then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that 
he said, John indeed baptized with water ; but ye 
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Here 
baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit appear to 
be so intimately associated in the mind of the apostle 
Peter, that the one suggests the other ; and yet Dr. 
H. deems it a great corruption of the ordinance to 
teach that it refers to the purifying agency of God's 
descending Spirit ! How immersion corrupts the 
imagination ! 

Titus, 3:5. " According to his mercy he saved 
us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of 
the Holy Ghost.'' Here the reader can see for him- 
self that both regeneration and the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost are expressly called washing — baptism. 
Dr. H., then, does great injustice to his own standing 
as a scholar and theoloo:ian, when he hazards the as- 
sertion that Pedo-baptists have corrupted the ordi- 
nance of Christian baptism by teaching that it refers 
to regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. 



100 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

I greatly regret his recklessness, and hope these 
kind strictures on his work may cause him to see and 
retract his errors. Faithfahiess to him, frequently 
requires a measure of rebuke from me, which no- 
thing but an earnest desire for his good could cause 
me to administer. When he does violence to the 
plainest language of his opponents; puts sentiments 
into the mouths of the dead, which would fill them 
with horror, and calumniates the living — ^justice to 
society, as well as his own good, requires that his 
sectarianism and party zeal be exposed. Lovers of 
pure truth will be careful to give correct statements 
of the points they oppose, and never will ascribe to 
opponents sentiments which they disclaim. This is 
as unmanly as it is unchristian. When will partisans 
learn this truth ? 



CHAPTEE VII. 



INFANT BAPTISM 13 AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT DESPOILS THE CHUECH 
OF THOSE PECULIAR QUALITIES WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE 



In this chapter we have a strange medley of 
sublime truth and childish mistakes, with here and 
there a dash of perversion sufficient to fill the dullest 
stupor with astonishment. One, on reading these 
perversions of the language of others, finds a difficulty 
in deciding whether to refer them to prejudice, or a 
disposition to place his opponents in an unfavorable 
light. No one who will read three pages of the 
work can for a moment admit that our author cannot 
understand plain English, and still no man could be 
more unfortunate than he in setting forth the real 
ideas of his opponents. He is less disposed to allow 
them the most favorable construction of their words 
than any controversialist we remember to have read. 
It would seem that he has no wish to convince them, 
but merely to enrage his own party against them. 
Sometimes, also, one is tempted to believe, that his 

9* 



102 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

perversions are intended to provoke his opponents 
to tlie use of such language as will prejudice their 
own cause. Be this as it may, we hope to be able 
to rebuke him with a measure of the sharpness he 
deserves, without offending against decency, or Chris- 
tian charity. 

This chapter is especially characterized by great 
looseness of style. Take one example — ^' The true 
visible church of our Lord Jesus Christ upon earth 
is necessarily spiritual and pure. If deprived of 
these qualities, it is evidently no longer his church." 
It would seem, then, that if '^ the true visible church 
of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the eartW' be not 
both " spiritual and pure," it cannot be '' the true 
spiritual church of our Lord Jesus Christ uj^on the 
earthj'' upon the sea, or in the air. And if not the 
true spiritual church of our Lord Jesus Christ, then 
from the language before us, it must be his false 
spiritual church. Of course our Lord Jesus Christ 
has " upon the earth" two '' true visible" churches — 
one a " true visible" false church, both '-'- spiritual 
and pure," and the other a '' true visible" true 
church, both " spiritual and pure." This species of 
boyish trifling occurs so often that it amounts to a 
positive fault. If it were the blundering of one of 
the fraternity who had "never rubbed his back 
against college walls," it might pass without notice ; 
but it is a shame for a learned Doctor of Divinity 
to indulge in such reckless inattention^ of which he 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 103 

can find no example in the Bible ; but his book af- 
fords hundreds. 

But with the title of this chapter before us, we 
naturally inquire, How does infant baptism ^' despoil" 
Christ's church of its essential features ? Dr. How- 
ell shall tell — ^' The true visible church of our Lord 
Jesus Christ upon the earth is necessarily spiritual 
and pure. If deprived of these qualities, it is no 
longer his church. None others can enter his church, 
since it is his purpose to perpetuate in his body 
these holy qualities. We are now prepared to in- 
quire into the effect produced upon the character of 
the Church by infant baptism. It sets aside all the 
laws of membership enacted by Christ for her pres- 
ervation and glory. It proceeds upon others of its 
own creation and substitution. It brings into the 
body, not the spiritual and the pure only, but also 
all classes of men; and it thus impresses upon it 
such a character as effectually destroys its claims to 
be regarded as the true visible church of Christ. It 
is thenceforth necessarily carnal and unholy. It is 
not the church of Christ,'^'' 

On these extracts, I offer the following remarks : 
1. The Doctor, in these definitions, describes 
rather the church triumphant than the church mil- 
itant — what the church ought to be, rather than 
what it really is. He himself allows, that under the 
phrases, " kingdom of heaven'' and " kingdom of 
God/' our Lord describes the visible church. When 



104 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

we turn to His inspired descriptions, we read that 
" the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was 
cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." It 
is like " unto a man which sowed good seed in his 
field, but while men slept, his enemy came and 
sowed tares among the wheat"- — like unto '' ten vir- 
gins, and five of them were wise and five were fool- 
ish.''* Here the Saviour describes the visible church 
as it really is^ and if this description be true, Dr. 
Howell's is a mere fancy sketch, worth nothing at 
all. It is mere fiction. It answ^ers to nothing in 
creation here below. It does not suit his own im- 
mersion church. It is impossible for the Doctor 
himself to regard as ^' spiritual and pure" all who 
have been dipped into his church ; and if '' none 
others can enter [Christ's] church," it is certain that 
the church of Immersionists is not Christ's, because 
many of the sensual and impure have been dipped 
into it, and still remain in it. The writer knows 
some who were dipped into it while drunk. He has 
known their preachers to be ministering in the pulpit 
with bottles of ^^ the good critter" in their pockets, 
and the reverend pastors themselves boasting in a 
staggering " liberty" about the altar of the Lord! 
By his own definition, then, our author excludes his 
own denomination from all participation in the king- 
dom of Christ, since the sensual and impure still 
enter into that sect also. They are not " spiritual 
*^ ISIatt. 15 : 24, 25, 47, and 15 : 1, 2. 



EVILS OF DR, HOWELL. 105 

and pure," although dipped into a '* faction^" or 
" worldly corporation." calling itself ^^ the only body 
of Christ upon earth," It cannot be the body of 
Christ by its own showing; for it is printing and 
circulating a book that condemns itself, and " if it 
condemns itself, God is greater than it, and will also 
condemn if It receives and retains hypocrites in 
its communion, and calls them brethren, just because 
they have been immersed, while it excludes from the 
name, communion, and all privileges of the church 
those whom it acknowledges to be regenerated by the 
Spirit of God, for no other reason than simply be- 
cause they have not been immersed. It puts a higher 
estimate on an outward dash into the water than on 
the pure inward graces of the Spirit of life from 
Christ; for it receives all the unregenerate hypo- 
crites that submit to be dipped, while it unhes- 
itatingly excludes the regenerated from all partici- 
pation in its communion. 

JSTot one of these charges is our own. They are 
all the certain consequences of their own positions 
and definitions. We feel far more charitable towards 
them ; and knowing the imperfections of humanity 
and the definitions of the Scripture, we have ever 
been disposed, with all their errors, to regard them 
as a portion of the visible church of Christ ; because 
a large proportion of their body give, as we think, 
satisfactory evidence that they are born of the Spirit. 
But let their own doctrine be true^ that the visible 



106 EVILS OF DR, HOWELL, 

church consists entirely of the '' spiritual and pure/^ 
and that '• none others can enter" it, and the Dippers 
henceforth make neither part nor parcel of that 
glorious body. 

2. Another point in the extract before us is this-. 
*' It [infant baptism] sets aside all the laws of mem- 
bership enacted by Christ." 

This declaration is made on the simple authority 
of the Dippers. But it is directly opposed to the 
authority of Christ, who solemnly declares, in oppo- 
sition to the worldly wisdom of his disciples, that 
infants belong to his kingdom, and are a part of his 
visible church. He says they receive his kingdom 
in such a manner as to afford an instructive example 
to adults. He invites them to himself, takes them 
into his arms, and blesses them. How can thej 
come to Christy and still be out of his kingdom? 
Does Christ go out of his kingdom to receive them ? 
Does he bless those who are out of his kingdom ? 
What good will it do for Christ to receive and bless 
them, if they are still to be shut out of the kingdom 
of heaven ? But how can they be received openly^ 
and acknowledged as members of his kingdom, with- 
out baptism ? He commands us to receive them in 
his name. Is there any way to receive them in his 
name but by baptism ? Can any one be received in 
his name without baptism ? Then it is not infant 
baptism, but the Dippers, that "set aside all the 
laws of membership enacted by Christ.'^ 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 107 

3. Our es:=tr act further says: ^^ It [infant baptism] 
brings into the body, not the spiritual and pure only, 
but -also all classes of men." Well, then, it makes 
the church answer exactly to the description given 
by her King, It '^ is like unto a net that was cast 
into the sea, and gathered of every kind,'' and facts 
testify that it gathers at least as many of the ^' spirit- 
ual and pure " as any of its antagonists and haters 
can boast. But our author intends here more than 
he says. He further declares — ^^ The doctrine 
taught by Pedo-baptists would bring every child 
upon earth into the churcL" What a calamity this 
would be ! Just think of it ! All the children of 
earth put under religious training ! and not one left 
for the devil, or the Dippers ! By solemn vows 
every one is to be trained to read and study the 
Bible, and to know baptism, but remains forever 
ignorant of dipping, immersion, and the like ! But 
still he goes on— '^ It blots out every vestige of the 
chureh itself, by wholly destroying its visibility! 
No living being would be out of the church — [what 
a pity !] The church is the world, and the world is 
the church. Either there is no church, or no 
world !" Then we shall hear sore and bitter wailing 
among the Dippers about the time that all come to 
" know the Lord, from the least to the greatest," — • 
when the kingdom of Christ, extending from shore 
to shore, shall embrace all mankindj infants and 
adults. Oh ! how their hearts will ache ! That 



108 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 

'^ corporation," whicli they have misnamed the 
" church of Christ," — while all others are called 
^'sects'' or ''parties^' — will have passed away for- 
ever ! All, from the least to the greatest, will then 
be in the church ! and there will then, according to 
their wail, be " no visible church on earth," — full of 
impure, unholy infants ! ^' Every vestige of the 
[dipping] church blotted out !" Alas ! alas 1 " What 
do we now see ? The spirituality of the church is 
gone 1 The purity of the church is gone ! The 
visihihty of the church is gone I The church itself 
is gone 1 — destroyed by infant baptism !'^ Come, 
then, all ye devils in hell, and all ye wicked of earth, 
to swell these doleful lays ; for " as truly as I live, 
all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the 
Lord ;" and there will then be no church, [of Dip- 
pers,] because the least one on earth shall then be m 
the church I 

But seriously—Can Dr. Howell persuade himself 
that the visibility of the church depends on its con- 
trast with the world ! Can the church be seen no 
longer, when everybody gets into it ? Tut, tut ! 
Doctor, you surely have better sense than that. 
Come, put away your raillery, and go to work like a 
Christian philosopher. The busy world is not going 
to stop to listeh to your ill-natured wail about the 
babes. The dear little innocents will never corrupt 
the church, nor destroy its visibility. If any, for 
want of proper training, openly sell their birthright 



EVILS OF DR. ROWELL. 109 

for sinful pleasures, tliey instantly cease to be mem- 
bers of the visible church, as did Esau. If afterward 
they repent, and desire to be re-united to the church, 
we do not suppose that there is any more necessity 
to re-baptize them than there is to re-immerse those 
whoj in similar circumstances, return to the Dippers. 
Concerning a church practicing Pedo-baptism, our 
author asks, '' Will she not prefer a learned, or an 
eloquent, to a converted ministry ?" Ans. I am 
not aware of any such preference. The ministry of 
Pedo-baptist churches have long been as remarkable 
for their piety as for their learning ; nor am I aware 
that there is any incompatibility between learning 
and piety. As far as my knowledge of men extends, 
the learned are not more vicious than the ignorant. 
I know many Pedo-baptist ministers, who are in every 
way qualified to figure in the learned professions, 
where they might accumulate handsome fortunes, 
that still content themselves in poverty to preach 
Christ crucified. I never knew one of them oppose 
Bible Societies, Sunday Schools, Missions, Temper- 
ance, &c., and this is a vast deal more than any man 
can say of the Dipping preachers. The Pedo-bap^ 
tists are at least as diligent in examining candidates 
for the ministry on their experimental acquaintance 
with religion, as any other branch of learning. And 
finally, Dr. Howell speaks of Pedo-baptist ministers 
as both ^- learned and pious," and says further, " The 
great body of them, [the Pedo-baptist ministry,] and 

10 



110 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

especially of those connected with the denominations 
I have named, are converted men." The testimony 
of an enemy is good. These words were forced from 
him by a world of facts around him. 

Then shame on the breath that gave utterance to 
the question, and that gave forth so much obloquy 
upon the '^ Protestant ministry." Let his own testi- 
mony to the purity of the Pedo-baptist ministry 
stand to rebut the scandal he has uttered, saying, 
^^ Infant baptism blots out every vestige of the 
church." If it has not blotted out the piety of the 
ministry, one vestige still remains, or else piety in 
the ministry is no mark of the true church. How 
is that, Doctor ? 

After representing infant baptism as corrupting 
and scandalizing the church, destroying her spiritu- 
ality, giving to her a corrupt, wordly, ambitious 
ministry, and blotting out '' every vestige of the 
.church itself," our author seems to have been dis- 
mayed by a host of facts presenting themselves on 
e-very side ; and in his terror at their appearance, 
without recanting one of the ugly ill-natured charges 
he had made, he proceeds forthwith to give four 
reasons why our Pedo-baptist churches are not cor- 
rupted and blotted out ! 

" The first [reason] is, the great Baptist principle, 
with which they are unceasingly in contact." 
" Baptist principle I" Thought you said that is not 
English. None but the learned know what Baptist 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. Ill 

means. Say Dii^-per principle^ in plain English, so 
that all may understand you. The '' Baptist prin- 
ciple " has saved all from corruption ! ! and what is 
that precious salt, the " Baptist principle " ? The 
only thing in which they differ from all others is 
dipping their members into water; and how that 
has saved all the other churches from ruin, no one 
can conceive. We have felt more of their influence 
in opposing education, Sunday School, Missionary 
and Temperance Societies, than in anything else; 
but when, by God's help, we rolled these benevolent 
operations upon them, they joined with the rest to 
help them forward. What infinite self-conceit to 
imagine that they have saved every branch of the 
church from ruin, because they fell in with the rest, 
when they could not help themselves ! 

^- The second of these causes is the universal diffu- 
sion of the Bible." And who did all this ? The 
Dippers ? No, verily. Thousands all over this land 
remember well their determined opposition to the 
diffusion of the Bible. Their own church members 
were found destitute of the Scriptures. Many of 
them did not possess the New Testament ; and when 
supplied by our distributors, they burnt the book of 
God, Nor was this done by one or two. Many 
JJip)pers burnt the Bible ; and the reason they 
assigned was, that it tuught sprinkling and infant 
baptism ! There are yet living witnesses all over 
this country to prove these facts. And now, for- 



112 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

soothj tliej are tlie people that have saved all the 
rest from corruption, by diffusing the Scriptures ! 
And this day, before God and the world, they are 
the avowed opponents of our old English Bible, for 
the same reasons which induced them to burn it, 
when given to them as a gratuity by Pedo-baptists. 
These scandals might sleep forever in the grave of 
oblivion, if the church of God did not need them for 
her vindication, and the Dippers for the rebuke of 
their pride and insolence. 

" The cause [of keeping Pedo-baptist churches 
from corruption, and having every vestige of the 
church itself blotted out] is found in the character 
of our Pedo-baptist ministry. Their religion and 
good sense lead them to discard, except in its forms, 
the puerilities of their distinguishing rites." And 
these are the same men who, a little while ago, were 
corrupted by infant baptism, and led to aspire more 
after learning and eloquence, and fame and power, 
than after piety ! Our learned divine cannot re- 
member one hour what he wrote the hour before. 
One hour they are corrupting the church, and the 
next they are purifying it ! They are '' learned and 
pious " practitioners of " puerilities ^' too " absurd 
and foolish " to be regarded by the commonest minds 
as worthy of a place anywhere, except in the darkest 
corruptions and the weakest superstitions of heathen- 
ism ! These ministers cannot possess all these 
traits. One set of them falsifies the other ; and the 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 113 

Doctor will confer a favor, if in the next edition he 
tells us in good earnest what he wishes the people 
to believe concerning Pedo-baptist ministers. Are 
they really " learned and pious," possessed of ^'re- 
ligion and good sense," or are they the abettors of 
^' corruption and superstition," the dupes of '^ folly " 
and weakness — '^ puerility " % 

The fourth and last excuse (of the " spirituality 
and purity " of the ^^ corrupt and superstitious 
Pedo-baptist churches) is the revivals of religion 
which have so long and so extensively prevailed in 
our country."" But who, we ask, were the agents, 
under God, for the promotion of these revivals ? 
The world knows that when they had progressed so 
far among Pedo-baptists that they resulted in all 
those stupendous plans of modern benevolence, hav- 
ing for their object the conversion of the world, the 
Dippers were so sunk in antinomianism and fatality 
that they opposed them every one with all their 
might. Nor did they yield to the true spirit of ag- 
gressive Christianity until it threatened their ex- 
istence. The gospel did conquer their ignorance and 
sluggishness, be it recorded to the praise of divine 
grace. But it must achieve still another victory. 
As soon as their people began to be educated, they 
were more and more persuaded that our good Bible 
teaches sprinkling and infant baptism. To rid them- 
selves of this difficulty, and preserve their existence, 
they wage war against baptize^ alleging that it is too 

10* 



114 EVILS OF BR. HOWELL, 

much like the Greek original haptizo^ and they de- 
cidedly prefer the Latin immerse^ which is so far 
separated from the original as to be deemed safe to 
their interests. Presently, however, they find this 
Latin leads too near to Rome. In this extremity they 
call for the word r/ip, which is so much unlike the 
original hajjtize^ that it is deemed trustworthy as a 
vehicle of their distinguishing idea of the initiatory 
ordinance of Christianity. — Instead of uniting with 
others in the glorious achievements of the world's 
conversion^ they are perpetually retarding the work 
by thrusting forward their antinomianism, their op- 
position to benevolent efforts, their new- translation 
whims, their immersion dogmas — a man cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God unless he is immersed^ 
dippedy or plunged ! They cannot be persuaded to 
go on to perfection ; for they must always be laying 
again the foundation of immersion, dipping, &c., and 
can never advance from these useless dogmas to 
work directly for the salvation of the world. Thus 
they hinder the work of revivals and the conversion 
of the world, by keeping the people agitato d about 
water ! 

If our author will employ a little more industry 
in collecting facts, and a little more care in his in- 
ductive processes, he will find that the true reason 
of the " spirituality and purity " of the Pedo-bap- 
tist churches is found in the fact that from childhood 
they are taught the holy Scriptures^ which are able 



EVILS OF DR. HO^^'ELL. 115 

to make tliem wise unto salvation. He will find that 
in the great revivals wliicli have blessed our land, 
nearly three-fourths of those who profess religion 
were baptized in infancy, while, perhaps, hardly one- 
tenth of all the children born are baptized. On in- 
quiry, he will find that while baptized children, on 
the Sabbath, were generally studying the Bible, the 
children of Dippers were generally fishing, robbing 
birds' nests, orchards, and melon patches, dragging 
farmers' plows from their fields and hanging them in 
trees, turning cattle out of the pastures, tying brush 
to colts' tails, and perpetrating all manner of small 
villany. Their parents taught them that if they 
were of the elect, " the Lord would bring them in, 
in his own good way and time." They held the same 
doctrine in regard to the conversion of the world. 
But the power of divine evangelism found in the 
Pedo-baptist churches, with Grod's blessing, producing 
revivals, and extending the circulation of the Scrip- 
tures in spite of infidels and Dippers, they have been 
much improved of late years. The work now to be 
done for them is by the power of Bible truth to 
drive them up out of the water upon dry land in open 
sunshine, where they can be warmed into holy zeal 
for the salvation of the world. They must be driven 
from their new-translation mania, and taught to let 
our English Bible read baptize — like the original — 
and put their Latin at the bottom of the sea, where 
it belongs. Then, if they must dip instead of bap- 



116 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

tize^ let them dip away ; but by all means aid in 
distributing the Word of God according to the 
original. That will soon teach their own children 
the difference between dip and baptize^ and then the 
Dippers will pass away, and the churches will have 
rest, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and the 
comfort of the Spirit, and the light of the Bible will 
be multiplied. Let them study these things, and we 
shall have no more complaints about the corrupting 
influences of infant baptism. Men do not gather 
grapes of thorns, nor figs from thistles. 

After charging all manner of corruption on infant 
baptism, and then giving four reasons why it does 
not corrupt, our author, through twelve pages of his 
work, goes on again to accuse infant baptism of all 
the corruptions of popery, and every species of un- 
godliness in the church. But we find nothing here 
worthy of attention. He perverts every author he 
quotes. Examples : He finds infant baptism men- 
tioned by early Christian writers, and corruptions in 
the church prevailing at the same time. He as- 
cribes, without any authority, these corruptions to 
infant baptism, and then concludes, " See here what 
a fold thing infant baptism is V When it would 
be just as relevant for one to look for some mention 
by the fathers, of the sanctifying influences of the 
Holy Spirit, and a contemporary mention of some 
flagitious iniquity, — then exclaim, " How dreadful 
a doctrine is that of the Sp)irit''s influences .'" Or 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 117 

one might note the fact of women's rights and spirit- 
rapping as contemporary with the circulation of Dr. 
Howell's book on the imagined '^ evils of infant bap- 
tism," and then wisely exclaim, '' See here the fruits 
of this corruiot and corrupting hook /" 

When Dr. Wisner speaks of the neglect of parents 
to fulfil the vows they made at the baptism of their 
children, our author seizes upon it as a proof of the 
corrupting influences of infant baptism ! All the 
mischiefs of what used to be called '• the half-way 
covenant " introduced by formalists, are also lugged 
into the argument, and set down as proofs of the 
corrupting influences of infant baptism. No serious 
man can read such perversions of facts stated in the 
plainest words of authors, such sophistry and shame- 
less deceit, without inquiring what must necessarily be 
the effect upon the moral character of those who re- 
ceive them as truth. 

If infant baptism has been turned from its proper 
purpose by some who have espoused it, it is no more 
than has happened to every doctrine of religion. 
The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit furnished 
occasion for pride, ambition, and contention in apos- 
tolic churches. — 1 Cor. 14th chap. From the doc- 
trine of Grod's renewing grace has been drawn a plea 
for deferring the claims of repentance. God's pro- 
tecting care of his people has been thought to favor 
sloth and indifference. The purest revivals of re- 
ligion have furnished a cloak for fanaticism; and 



118 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

Christian liberty, for licentiousness. But wlo that 
possesses the smallest particle of candor, or common 
honesty, would think of offering such perversions as 
arguments against these precious doctrines of the 
Bible 7 If such corruptions by men do not corrupt 
other Scriptural doctrines, with what face can they 
be urged against infant baptism ? Is this the best 
Dippers can do ? 

In the next place we are told that " against this 
deterioration and moral death in Pedo-baptist 
churches, as such, there is no possible remedy — [but] 
do corruptions, no matter of what character, invade 
Baptist churches ? They contain inherently all the 
elements of restoration." In support of these alle- 
gations, it is asserted that Pedo-baptist churches are 
filled with immoral, irreligious members, who will 
always vote to sustain their own corruptions; but 
the "■ Baptist churches," having none but the ^' spir- 
itual and pure " in them, can easily put out all the 
corrupt and irreligious ! This is beautiful ! 

Dr. H. ought to know that the baptized infants in 
Pedo-baptist churches have no more to do with gov- 
ernment than infants in a family. They are sinners 
in the church, as they are in a family, and are under 
governors and teachers till they come to mat- 
and give evidence of piety, when they are adL^Aitcd 
to full fellowship, as they are to full citizenship at 
the same period of life. Until all this is done, they 
have no more vote in the church than in the State. 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 119 

We have always much less fear of their corrupting 
the church than of those who enter it in after-life 
without the advantage of early and thorough train- 
ing. Just so in the State, we always apprehend 
more danger from foreigners, who come in without a 
thorough understanding of our republican principles, 
than from our own children, who have been trained 
from the cradle to know the rights and duties of 
citizens. But Dr. Howell's argument goes to prove 
that our only danger in the State is from our native 
citizens, who have been corrupted by education and 
diligent training ! That we are perfectly safe under 
the rule of foreigners, who know nothing of our 
language, manners, customs, nor government, till 
they come among us (!) What does he mean ? 
What is he writing for ? Shame ! fie ! scandal on 
the man, who can totter along in this manner, with- 
out thinking of the fatal stabs he is administering 
to his own cause. His church will surely suppress 
the work, and get a new one written, or quit alto- 
gether. 

This long chapter closes as follows : *' With Bap- 
tists, I remark in conclusion, are lodged, as you 
must plainly see, the only conservative influences 
now existing in the universe, [heaven, earth and 
hell] It is ours, with the blessing of God, to save 
from being quenched, that truth which is the world's 
only hope, [and very lately we turned more out of 
the church for joining Bible Societies and Bible 



120 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

classes.] It is ours, also, to save the Pedo-baptists 
themselves, of all classes, from the consequences of 
their own errors, [for the fools think they can find a 
way to heaven without passing through Jordan.] It 
is ours to spread the gospel throughout the round 
earth, [and let the flat one sink, and the oblate 
spheroid go to the Pedo-baptists.] How exalted, 
therefore, how responsible, how far-reaching is our 
mission /" [Yes, " exalted" to the bottom of Jordan, 
" responsible" for altering the Bible, and '^ far- 
reaching" over sea and land to proselyte other 
Christians into the water.] 



CHAPTEE YIII. 

" INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE ITS PEACTICE (?) PER- 
PETUATES THE SUPERSTITIONS BY WHICH IT WAS ORIGINATED.'* 

Que. author sets out with the annunciation that 
there is no mention of infant baptism by the earlier 
Christian fathers : 

" Origen, who lived in the middle of the third 
century, was the first to defend it." 

Deceitful ! How many Christian writers flourish- 
ed before Origen ? Be candid, be sober, be honest. 
Origen was certainly one of the earlier Christian 
fathers. He was born in A. D. 185, and died in 
A. D. 253, only three years after the time that our 
author represents him as in the full career of life. 
It is plain that Dr. H. designed by the words here 
quoted, to make on the common reader's mind the 
impression that Origen flourished full half a century 
later than he did. 

And •' Origen was the first to defend it" ! Then 
it was certainly practiced before that period, and no 
one before had any occasion to defend it; because 

11 



122 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

BO question about it had as yet been sprung. But 
no one can believe that it could have been intro- 
duced at any time without controversy. If, then, 
^' Origen was the first to defend it," and there is not 
the remotest hint that it was introduced in his da}^, 
the evidence is pretty clear from Dr. Howell's own 
showing, that it must have prevailed in the church 
from time immemorial. This we showed to be fact 
in the first volume of the True Baptist. 

We wish here to repeat that our appeal is not to 
the church nor to the fathers, but to the Bible. 

AVhen the proof of the historical fact is complete, 
we nitist go to the Word of God, the foundation of 
authority, to ascertain whether it be right, or not. 
If infant baptism were practiced by the earlier 
Christians without divine authority, their example 
could furnish no law for us. If they neglected or 
contemned a divine ordinance, that would afford no 
shield of protection to us iu imitating their rebellion. 
Still, be it known that we are not afraid of the testi- 
mony of the fathers, and as our opponents are not 
content to remain on the consecrated ground of di- 
vine truth, we are willing to meet them on any arena 
they prefer. 

Dr. H. says, ^' Origen was the first to defend it." 
Then who was Origen? He was born A. D. 185, 
and of course came to maturity about one hundred 
years after the death of the apostle John. He was 
a man of great learning. He became pious in early 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 123 

life. He became a prominent and very influential 
Christian minister, and was well acquainted with the 
practices of the church from the days of the apostles. 
Let Dr. Howell and the Dippers explain it to com- 
mon sense how it is possible for such a man to be 
so deceived in reference to such an ordinance as in- 
fant baptism. Origen, in defending this ordinance, 
appeals to the Scriptures, the example of the apostles, 
and the practice of the church. How was it possible 
for Origen to make such an appeal before the thou- 
sands of Christians then living, unless it was known 
to all that the ordinance had been practiced as he 
declared ? If it were a human invention, Origen 
and thousands of others must have known the fact ; 
and if it could be supposed that he was sufficiently 
corrupt to conceal the fact, and to attempt to deceive 
and corrupt the church, still there were then living 
thousands of aged Christians who personally knev? 
the practice of the church in this respect from the 
age next succeeding the apostles. Why did none 
of them contradict Origen ? Why did no one leave 
it on record, that infant baptism was foisted into the 
church at sitcJi a time^ and by such a man ? Had 
no one in that age except Origen '* rubbed his back 
against a college wall" ? 

Dr. Howell has no right, in the absence of proof, 
to affirm that infant baptism had been foisted into 
the church at this early day. If he affirm, he is 
bound by every rule of honorable controversy to 



124 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

support his affirmation by competent testimony. 
There is no %uch testimony, or the Doctor would 
have produced it. He admits that it was practiced, 
and that Origen defended it as early as the year 
252. But he attempts to prove that it was unknown 
to the church before this period, and the proof is in 
these words : 

" It was,'^ as he [Origen] tells us, " a subject of 
' frequent inquiry amoug the brethren,' consequently 
it must have been a new topic. ^ Brethren' did not 
understand it." 

In all the annals of controversy a more miserable 
fetch cannot be found. There was '' frequent in- 
quiry among the brethren" about infant baptism, 
and that proves that it was '' a new topic" ! Well, 
then, it must still be " a new topic ;" for now there 
is at least as much inquiry as there was sixteen hun- 
dred years ago. But why does not our author, like 
an honest friend of truth, tell his readers the ques- 
tions in reference to infant baptism, which were agi- 
tated in Origen's day ? Did those questions relate to 
the divine origin of the rite, or to the time of admin" 
istering it, and the effects that followed ? 

But again, our author tells us that infant baptism 
was not mentioned by any of the earlier Christian 
writers ; but ^' Origen was the first to defend it." 
He dares not say that Origen introduced it, but 
merely defended it. Then it is plain, from his own 
showing, that it had been introduced before it was 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 125 

defended. Again he declares that Justin Martyr 
does not mention infant baptism, and argues from 
his silence that the rite was not practiced in his day. 
Then of course he must admit that Justin would 
have noticed the fact if it had been foisted into the 
church in his day. 

Then let us put the Doctor's historical facts to- 
gether, that we may see how they look. Justin Mar- 
tyr was beheaded about A. D. 167, and according to 
Dr. H., infant baptism was up to that time unknown ; 
but Origen found the practice so prevalent, when he 
came on the stage of action, that he defended it as 
an apostolic ordinance, which had been in use all the 
while. Now, if Justin was beheaded in A. D. 167, 
and Origen was born in A. D. 185, then, by Dr. 
Howell's own account, infant baptism must have been 
introduced, and become prevalent in the church, 
without exciting any controversy, in the short space 
of 38 years, which intervened between the death of 
Justin and the maturity of Origen ! And (what is 
entirely unaccountable here) Ireneus, a learned and 
pious minister, was in the prime of life and full ac- 
tivity during this whole period. He studied under 
Polycarp, and Polycarp studied with the Apostle 
John ; and yet Dr. Howell's account of the intro- 
duction of infant baptism would place it in the time 
of this holy and vigilant man, without an utterance 
from him against the abuse. Dr. H. himself, no 
matter how much he tries, cannot believe that amat- 

11* 



126 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

ter so important as infant baptism could have been 
foisted into the church in the days of the immediate 
disciples of the apostles, without meeting the decid- 
ed opposition of such men as Ireneus, Theophiius of 
Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, &c. These men were 
decided opponents to every departure from apostolic 
usage. Yet not a man among them questioned the 
lawfulness of infant baptism. Some thought it ought, 
like circumcision, to be administered on the eighth 
day after birth, others believed convenience might 
regulate the time. Some supposed that our Lord's 
words to Nicodemus justified the conclusion that the 
divine Spirit always accompanied baptism, and of 
course that the baptized, whether infants or adults, 
were cleansed from all sin which had been previous- 
ly committed ; others ascribed no such effects to bap- 
tism. These are the points to which " frequent in- 
quiry among the brethren" chiefly related. Then, 
on his own ground, Dr. H. is utterly at fault. 

Still again, our author's whole argument, from the 
silence of Justin Martyr and Ireneus, is as baseless 
as the dreams of night ; Justin, born in the days of 
the Apostle John, speaking of those who were mem- 
bers of the church in his day, says : ^' A part of 
these were sixty or seventy years old, who were made 
disciples to Christ from their infancy." By all ac- 
quainted with the language of the fathers, it is known 
that they, like ourselves, apply the words " disciples 
of Christ" only to those who are baptized. If Jus- 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 127 

tin wrote these words even as late as the year he was 
beheaded, there were then in the church persons who 
had been baptized in infancy during the life of the 
Apostle John. 

Ireneus, born A. D. 97, before the death of the 
Apostle John, says : '• Christ came to save all per- 
sons who by him are born again to God ; infants, and 
little ones, and children, and youth, and elder per- 
sons ;" and he himself tells us that by being '' born 
again" he means baptized ; because it is by baptism 
that we are visibly born into the church. I quote 
these passages not as authority for infant baptism. 
For authority I appeal to the Bible alone. But our 
opponents dash off into the writings of the fathers, 
and there practice the same wily arts of perversion 
which they display on. our modern creeds. They as- 
sert that by the testimony of the fathers infant bap- 
tism was unknown until the middle of the third cen- 
tury. I go to the fathers and prove by their direct 
testimony that there were then living in the church 
persons who had been baptized in their infancy be- 
fore the death of the Apostle John. They may 
just as well quit their vagaries, and go back within 
the sacred precincts of the Bible. If it sustains 
infant baptism, we will not ask leave of the fathers 
to practice it. If it gives us no authority for the 
rite, we will not seek the protection of the fathers. 

Dr. Howell, then, must not assert that no one men- 
tions infant baptism before the middle of the third 



128 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

century. It is wrong. On his own showing, his as- 
sumption is false, and the presentation of all the 
facts places him in a deplorable condition. Besides, 
he often tells us that infant baptism is of Popish 
origin — is a Popish superstition, &c. ; and here he 
himself proves that it was practiced at least three 
hundred and fifty years before there ivas a Tope ! 
One who takes so little care of himselfj must not 
wonders if others care as little for him. Let him 
know that God can give up the foes of his truth to 
contradict and confute themselves, and thus to neu- 
tralize their own influence. 

In the beginning of this chapter, we meet this con- 
temptible assertion — '' Infant baptism is the off- 
spring of su2Jerstition,''^ with half a page of similar 
stuff. Dr. Howell and the Dippers would do well 
to recollect that Christ requires us to receive little 
children in his name, and that there is no authority 
to receive any in His name without baptism. Is it 
superstition to obey Him ? Is it a superstition to 
regard infants as being within the constitution of 
divine grace and the kingdom of God? Is it super- 
stition to acknowledge these great truths by bap- 
tism, as God has appointed ? It is very fine, indeed, 
for such words to be used by those who " dreamed" 
some queer thing, and in consequence joined the 
church at the next '^ monthly meeting," — for those 
who " heard the Lord from the fork of a big poplar," 
or ''from the heart of a black-berry patch," call 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 129 

them to preach the gospel — for those who, for fear of 
^'bad luck," could not be persuaded to begin any 
work, or set out on a journey on Friday, but have 
no objections to Sunday. They talk about super- 
stition 1 

After two pages of sheer abuse, our author comes 
to tell us wherein this superstition consists : 

" The opinion began to prevail as early as the mid- 
dle of the second century, that there is in baptism 
some mysterious, secret, inexplicable efficacy, which 
conveys the grace of God to the soul of the recipi- 
ent ! No one, whether adult or infant, was consid- 
ered safe who should die without having obtained 
the benefits of these cleansing influences. These 
were, mainly, the superstitions that originally pro- 
duced infant baptism. From this accumulation of 
theological impurities, like Python from the mud of 
the deluge, sprang infant baptism.'' 

Here it is again. Every reader will remember 
how zealous our author was, in the third chapter of 
this very work, to convict infant baptism of a denial 
of human depravity. Now he tells us that it origin- 
ated in a superstitious belief that baptism will 
cleanse depravity from the soul ! He certainly took 
lessons from Proteus, when he should have been 
studying the Bible. He says that infant baptism 
originates in a superstitious notion of cleansing from 
guilt, and yet utterly denies that there is any guilt ! ! 
Now, let us have one thing or another. It is in- 



130 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

eiFably puerile to continue blustering before the 
Christian public. We have proved by his own wit- 
ness, Justin Martyr, that infant baptism was prac- 
ticed in the Christian church before the death of the 
apostle John ; and in the extract before us he says 
that the superstition from which it sprang " began to 
prevail as early as the middle of the second cen- 
tury." How could infant baptism spring from an 
error that was not in existence for nearly a century 
after the time we have proved it to be practiced ? 
We shall not now be surprised to hear that the sus- 
pension bridge is the cause of the great falls of 
Niagara. 

It would be very easy to prove that the super- 
stition to which Dr. H. refers is the mother of im- 
mersion ; and that it waged war with infant baptism, 
but was never able to expel it from the church. 
Immersion has ever been the foe of baptism, and 
especially of infant baptism. When men began to 
attribute to baptism the divine power of washing sin 
away from the soul, and of purifying the heart, they 
supposed, of course, that these effects varied with 
the quantity of water. They removed baptism from 
its place as an emblem of the blood of sprinkling, and 
installed it with all the honors of an agent in the 
office of the Holy Spirit. The first step taken, the 
downward progress was easy. The intention of the 
ordinance being overlooked, the change of its out- 
ward form would follow of course. 



EVILS OF BR. HOWELL. 131 

It was thought that a dipping being a much more 
thorough washing than sprinkling, must be prefer- 
able ; and so it is, if baptism be a o'eal ivashing^ in- 
stead of an emblematic cleansing^ referring to the 
sprinkled blood of atonement. It was this very 
superstition which, with Peter's extravagance, cried 
out, " Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and 
my head." If a little water be good, a great deal 
is better. Immersion is the spawn of this supersti- 
tion. Still these ancient Dippers acknowledged that 
sprinklmg is the proper. Scriptural baptism ; and 
they referred to the Scriptures for proof on this 
point, but defended immersion solely with the philos- 
ophy that if a little water does good, much will do 
better. The same argument is the principal sup- 
port of immersion to this day. It has continually 
opposed infant baptism either with a denial of human 
depravity, or a denial that infants are within the 
range of the covenant of grace, or the kingdom of 
God. 

Our author shows that some of the fathers advised 
to defer the baptism of infants, unless in the case of 
approaching death ; and he argues from this fact that 
they disapproved of infant baptism. If he had been 
so candid as to give his readers all the facts in this 
case, he would have saved himself the trouble of 
forming this argument from human authority. I do 
suppose that Dr. II. knows very welV that these 
fathers believed that baptism, and especially im- 



132 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 

mersion, has the effect to wash away all the guilt 
contracted up to the moment of its administration — 
and that for sins committed after baptism, other 
specifics were recommended. As infants were deemed 
incapable of using other remedies, it was considered 
best to defer their baptism as long as safety would 
allow. This is the reason %ohy it ivas delayed. No 
one questioned the divine origin of infant baptism. 
We are compelled to say that the Doctor's shuffling 
here savors more of special pleading than the grave 
and candid discussions of a Christian teacher in 
earnest to bring forth to open daylight " the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." 

Dr. Howell next takes a sweep round Carthage, 
Milan, Constantinople and even as far as Alexandria 
in Egypt, calling in his travels on the catechumeni- 
cal schools, established for the training of young 
men in Scripture doctrine. Everywhere he goes, he 
finds infant baptism practiced with a view to cleanse 
the infant from the guilt of sin. From this fact he 
concludes that the ordinance had its origin in this 
superstition. How logical ! But stay. Was not 
adult baptism, in all these places, administered with 
the very same intent ? Dr. H. knows it was. Then, 
I ask, does it follow that adult baptism originated in 
the same superstition ? 

Not a hint can he find about the origin of infant 
baptism. His own witnesses testify that it has been 
practiq^d from the days of the apostles ; and yet, 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 133 

when he finds baptism administered with supersti- 
tious views, the same fact proves the human origin 
of infant baptism, and the divine origin of adult 
baptism ? What does Dr. H. mean ? and what is 
the matter with him ? I know Dippers who plunge 
people with a view to wash away their sins; but 
really, it never occurred to me that this fact proves 
the human origin of immersion. How does Dr. H. 
view that fact ? 

Dr. Howell's investigations simply prove that a 
foolish superstition had engrafted itself upon the 
ordinance of Christian baptism, and appeared as much 
in the baptism of adults as in that of infants. When 
will Christian men secure the esteem of honorable 
men of the world by such devices in argument as 
that in the example before us ? 

The next step in the work before us is to prove 
that '• infant baptism does overwhelm and destroy 
the Scripture doctrine of predestination." 

Then it seems that '' sprinkling a little water in a 
babe's face " is what the Dippers call '^ overwhelm' 
ingy Then it is not so far from immersion, after 

all. And it not only overwhelms, it destroys 

obruit— ^^the Scripture doctrine of predestina- 
tion .'"—Infant baptism must be a deep and rapid 
stream, and what is very strange, it runs backward 
into all eternity, and sweeps before it the counsels of 
the Lord ! How could it rise in the third century ? 
The Dippers, with all their water propensities, might 

12 



134 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

do well to keep aloof, as this destructive stream 
might bear them, no one knows whither. 

And after it has " overwhelmed and destroyed the 
Scripture doctrine of predestination," it is rash, if 
not foolish, in Dr. H. to make any attempt to arrest 
its progress, unless he deems himself stronger than 
" The Scripture doctrine of predestination." 

Our author continually supposes that all Pedo- 
baptists hold that the faith of the parent is trans- 
ferred to the infant, in order to qualify it for baptism. 
That some who practice infant baptism should not 
understand it, is no more to be wondered at than 
that some of those who practice immersion should 
misapprehend it. Still, to bring up any practical 
misapprehension of some, as an argument against 
any ultimate principle, is the last and weakest effort 
of sophistry. With the great body of Pedo-baptists, 
faith is no more a qualification for baptism than for 
a place in the kingdom of Grod. They hold that of 
right baptism belongs to every member of that king- 
dom, and that every infant, of course, has a right to 
baptism, as an open declaration that it belongs to 
God in the kingdom of his Son. 

But as 'baptism is a solemn covenant transaction, 
in which those coming to it engage to be the Lord's, 
none but believers are competent to enter into it. 
One who does not believe God's covenant cannot en- 
ter into it; but he that believes it, enters into it 
heartily. The Lord's covenant is, that He will bless 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 135 

the means of religious instruction which He has ap- 
pointed, and make them effectual to salvation. Then, 
he that believes this covenant, properly engages that 
his children shall forever be the Lord's. He has 
unwavering confidence in the means of training which 
Grod has appointed and promised to bless. He be- 
lieves that God. will make those means effectual to 
the conversion, sanctification and salvation of his 
children; and he is therefore competent heartily to 
declare, by baptism, that his children are the Lord's, 
and that confiding in the blessing of a covenant- 
keeping. God, they shall forever be the Lord's. Not 
so with the unbeliever. He has no confidence in 
God's promises, nor in his appointed means. He 
disagrees with God. He thinks it best not to tram- 
mel the mind of his children with religious instruc- 
tion, but to leave them to themselves. Then it is 
plain that he is not competent to enter into cov- 
enant with God in regard to things in which he has no 
faith, and, indeed, is opposed to God. Of course, 
his children cannot partake of these benefits, although 
theirs by eternal right ; because their unbelieving 
parents refuse to agree with God as to the proper 
course of religious training. The covenant engage- 
ment is ratified and sealed by baptism, and the bless- 
ing is secured by fulfilling the covenant in a proper 
course of religious training. For all this, none but 
believers are competent; and therefore no children 
but those of believers are to be baptized. If the 



136 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

children of unbelievers suffer, it is not the fault of 
God, or the gospel ; but of the unbelief and obsti- 
nate rebellion of their wicked parents, who refuse to 
employ Grod's means for the salvation of their chil- 
dren. 

It must be known to Dr. H. that Pedo-baptists as 
readily administer the ordinance to servants and 
wards of believers as to their own children. They 
never inquire whether the parents of such children 
are or were believers, or not. If the children have 
secured to them a religious education, it is all that 
is required ; because the blessing conies through in- 
struction, and not by natural ties. This is the reason 
why Pedo-baptists have ever been so diligent in the 
religious instruction of their families. Why, then, 
the perpetual repetition of the insane slang about 
^' grace, faith and election being propagated by 
natural generation"? 

I conclude the review of this chapter with another 
sample of the Christian courtesy of Dr. Howell and 
the Dippers. Here it is : 

'' Infant baptism must, and does still, look for 
support to the superstitions by which it was origin- 
ally produced. Whoever submits to such supersti- 
tions in one department of religion, will soon be 
ready to give up his judgment and common sense in 
all the others. Thus a downward progress is com- 
menced, which cannot be arrested short of the dark 
caverns of popery." 



CHAPTEE IX, 

"infant baptism is an evil ; because it subverts the true 
doctrine of infant salvation." 

This chapter is marked by bold assumption and 
.magisterial dictation excelling anything of the sort 
I remember to have read. The subject is intro- 
duced with these questions : — '' Of departed infants, 
what is the eternal destiny ? Are they happy or 
miserable ?" The answer is : '' Yf e believe that all 
infants are saved unconditionally." As the word 
^' unconditionally " means " without conditioUj" I 
supposed at first that the Dippers mean to say that 
infants are saved without regard to the merits of our 
blessed Saviour, whose righteousness is the sole con- 
dition — or term forming the ground — of our ac- 
ceptance with Grod. This view also accords exactly 
with their former declaration in this b.ook, that in- 
fants are not within the covenant of grace, or the 
kingdom of God. 

But, by reading further, I am led to believe, that 
by the erroneous use of the word ^- unconditionally " 

12* 



138 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

they mean without faith and rejyeMance^ which are 
by some writers called " proximate conditions " of 
salvation. The Christian world will certainly hail it 
with gladness as a new era in the progress of Chris- 
tianity, that even the Dippers, through their public 
societies, have at last conceded the doctrine of in- 
fant salvation. Our author makes a bold flourish, 
with bold declarations, that they have always be- 
lieved this doctrine ; but he offers not a word of 
proof, not a single quotation from one of their au- 
thors, ancient or modern, to sustain his bare asser- 
tions. The public know (for they have not spoken 
in secret) what has been their former teaching on 
this subject. Still, if even now they are willing to 
abjure their errors, let us not pursue them with their 
former sins and heresies. Let these be forgotten, 
and let us strive to understand what they now be- 
lieve. They shall speak for themselves : 

" We believe that all infants are saved uncon- 
ditionally, through the application to them, by the 
Holy Ghost, of the redemption of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. Thus it is that, being redeemed by the 
blood of Christ, they are saved by the infinite grace 
of God. To prepare them for happiness, it is evi- 
dent that the^redemption of Christ must be applied 
by the Holy Spirit, to their purification from sin. 
Otherwise they would be incapable of eternal life." 

In these extracts we submit the following re- 
marks : 



EVILS OF DR. ilOWELL. 139 

1. Here our author repeats, three times, the con- 
ditions^ terms, or grounds, on which infants are sav- 
ed ; and yet declares they are saved ^^ uncondition- 
ally." The conditions — terms forming the ground 
— are the atoning blood of the Redeemer, the grace 
of God, and the application of them by the Holy 
Spirit. Without these conditions, he teaches that 
they cannot be saved, and still avers that they " are 
saved unconditionally '^ !• If Dippers would only 
study enough to express their own views with per- 
spicuity, they would understand others better. 

2. The extracts before us says, " We believe that 
all infants are saved." This is undoubtedly on tbe 
other extreme ; for it is certain that many infants 
grow to maturity, sin and die without repentance, 
and thus are forever lost. Our author complains 
bitterly of Presbyterians for saying that '' elect in- 
fants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by 
Christ through the Spirit," But he does not state 
what point here presented is obnoxious, nor do we 
intend here to enter into a defence of any of the 
points presented ; but we remark, that on the points 
of being saved through Christ, and by the renewing 
of the Spirit, our author seems to agree with them 
in his language just quoted. He certainly will not 
deny that some die in infancy, and the only other 
point is '' elect infants," Eight or wrong, the world 
knows, that Presbyterians believe in election. They 
here teach, that while some of the elect grow to ma- 



140 EVILS OP DR. HOWELL. 

turitj, are converted, sanctified and saved, through 
the atonement of Christ, others of them die in in- 
fancy^ and are saved through the same atoning 
blood, and the same forgiving spirit. They do not 
affirm that any who die in infancy are lost ; but only 
that the class of the elect who die in infancy are 
saved. No infant damnation can be wrung from the 
passage, and no one who regards his reputation as a 
liaguist will deliberately assert it. The only differ- 
ence, then, between Presbyterians and Dippers on 
this point is, that Dippers believe '•'• all infants are 
saved," and Presbyterians believe that while many 
infants grow to maturity, and die in unbelief, all the 
'' elect infants dying in infancy y are saved,'' and 
plainly, that none but '' elect " ones do die in infancy^ 
the Lord taking them from the evils that might pre- 
vent their salvation. How, then, does " infant bap- 
tism subvert the true doctrine of infant salvation " ? 
3. In the extracts before us, it is further declared, 
*^ that the redemption of Christ must be applied [to 
infants] by the Holy Ghost, to their purification from 
sin." Now, for the Holy Spirit to purify from sin 
by applying the blood of Christ to the heart, is the 
most prominent idea expressed by being baptized 
with the Holy Ghost, and is also the great idea sym- 
bolized in baptism with water. If Christ baptizes 
infants with his own blood and Spirit, why may not 
his servants baptize them with water, as Peter didj 
when he saw the Holy Ghost fall on his hearers as 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 141 

on the disciples at Pentecost, and he remembered 
the word of the Lord, '^ John indeed baptized with 
water ; but je shall be baptized with the Holy 
Gho^t** Again, the blood of Christ that effects this 
purification of the infant's heart, is expressly called 
" the blood of sprinkling." If, then, as Dr. Howell 
himself declares, infants are purified by the blood 
of sprinkling, applied by the Holy Spirit in his bap- 
tismal cleansing, why in the name of all common 
sense may they not be sprinkled with clean water as 
a sensible illustration of these divine effects ? Cer 
tainly, on his grounds, infant baptism must stand im 
movable. Since, then, infant baptism so beautiful 
ly symbolizes the purification from sin and the sal 
vation of infants by the blood and Spirit of Christ 
it would be difficult for any one to show how it ^- sub- 
verts the true doctrine of infant salvation." Are 
philosophy and geometry ^* subverted" by i\\Q figures 
and diagrams used to illustrate them? Immersion 
backwards into cold water really seems to give the 
mind a slant in the same direction. 

4. In the extracts before us, it is declared that 
^^ infants are saved by the infinite grace of God." 
This doctrine is repeated throughout the chapter. 
To infants, our author applies the words of Paul — 
^' Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." 
We may cheerfully admit as true, the conclusion to 
which he arrives, without assenting to the process 
* Acts, 11:15, 16. 



142 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 

which conducts liim to the result, or even the prem- 
ises from which he sets out. All that we care here 
to notice^ is the admitted fact, that " infants are 
saved bj the grace of Grod." 

It may now be remembered that, on pages 97, 98, 
and in other parts of this work, our author condemns, 
as a fearful error, the doctrine that infants are in the 
covenant of grace, or in the kingdom of God. Then, 
we greatly desire to know what ideas the Dippers 
entertain about the covenant of grace, and kingdom 
of God. In its most comprehensive sense, the king- 
dom of God embraces the whole church, militant and 
triumphant, visible and spiritual. The declaration 
that they are no integral part of the kingdom of 
God, shuts infants out of bliss forever, unless per- 
sons may be saved without being in the church either 
here or in heaven. But, if they belong to the king- 
dom of God, either visible or spiritual, that fact en- 
titles them to baptism, and they must have it, or be 
defeated of their rights. 

By the covenant of grace all Christians (if I un- 
derstand them) mean to comprehend all those stipu- 
lated principles, which God has published to the world, 
as the rules that direct and limit the bestowment of 
his saving grace upon mankind. An unbelieving or 
an impenitent adult is beyond the covenant of grace ; 
because he stands outside of the rules by which the 
grace of God operates to the sanctification and salva- 
tion of sinners. To be a partaker of saving grace, 



EAHLS OF DR. H0^T:LL. 143 

sncli an adult must come within tbe regulations of 
grace. He must open his heart to Him that knocks. 
He must ^' be converted, and become as a little 
child," — must come into the kingdom of Grod's dear 
Son, where grace is dispensed to the purification and 
salvation of the soul. Otherwise, saving grace does 
not reach him. It cannot overstep its own bounds, 
although it can purifj and save any sinner who will 
come within its rules. Now, if infants are not within 
the covenant of grace, how in the name of common 
sense can they be saved by grace ? If they, like im- 
penitent adults, are out of the covenant of grace, I 
can see no way for either grace or salvation to reach 
them. It is plainly absurd to think of grace as op- 
erating beyond its own covenanted limits, and equally 
absurd to suppose that infants^ by faith and repent- 
ance, may be brought within the range of divine 
grace. Then infants must be born within the cov- 
enant of divine grace, and must remain in that rela- 
tion until, by personal sin, they forfeit its advantages, 
or they must be saved without grace, or they must 
be damned for sins which they never committed ! ! ! 
One of these alternatives must be taken. If in- 
fants are born within the covenant of grace, its pro- 
visions may reach them, and they may be saved. In 
that case they ought to be baptized ; for even Dr. 
Howell admits that the covenant of grace " has bap- 
tism annexed." Whenever adults are converted and 
become as little children in the covenant of grace 



144 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

and kingdom of God, they become proper subjects of 
baptism. They are not baptized to bring them into 
the covenant, but to testify that they are in. So 
infants, being within it during their personal inno- 
cency, should be baptized to testify that they are in it, 
and are entitled to its benefits until, by voluntary 
transgression, they forfeit these favors. If infants 
are holy enough to be saved, they are exactly holy 
enough to be baptized. The best saint on earth is 
not released from his fallen nature, until death brings 
him a discharge. Infants are partakers of the same 
fallen nature, and death brings to them also a release 
from the lusts of the flesh, and puts them into a 
state, where every faculty and every susceptibility 
of the mind may be developed, expanded and sanc- 
tified by the Holy Spirit, without the counter work- 
ings of the flesh, as in the case of the believer who 
has, through Jesus Christ, won the victory over sin 
and Satan. As the infant is not a personal trans- 
gressor, no personal repentance is necessary. By 
virtue of Christ's mediatorial rights, having purchas- 
ed for all the free grace unto justification of life, the 
infant, though inheriting a fallen nature, is born with- 
in his kingdom and the operation of his saving grace, 
purchased by his own blood, and ought to be baptiz- 
ed as such. If he does not live, like Esau, to sell 
his birthright in this grace, he is saved by it, of 
course. If he live to act in his own voluntary per- 
sonality under the influence of his fallen nature, he 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 145 

will disinherit himself by sin ; and before he can 
again enter into the covenant and kingdom of God's 
free grace, he must repent and become such as he 
was when a little child. He then re-enters the kino-, 
dom, and if baptized in infancy, he surely needs a 
repetij:ion of the ordinance no more than a hypocrite, 
who was dipped into some immersion-church, needs 
again to be dipped when he comes to be truly con- 
verted. Each merely owns and ratifies the oblio-a- 
tion of the act already performed. 

If '' infant baptism subverts the doctrine of infLint 
salvation," because it declares the infant then to be 
in the kingdom of heaven, then adult baptism must 
subvert the true doctrine of adult salvation by de- 
claring him also to be at that time in the kingdom. 
Then, to get an objectionable baptism, we must in- 
stitute one to declare that the subject is out of the 
kingdom; and then have him saved by grace beyond 
the limits of grace, and that '' unconditionally" upon 
the conditions of Christ's merits and the Spirit's 
grace ! Woe to such intolerable nonsense. 

Our author, feeling himself unable to meet the 
argument of Pedo-baptists, goes to the more congenial 
work of heaping opprobrium on his opponents. He 
says: ^'Methodists and Presbyterians scarcely know 
themselves what they believe on the subject" of in- 
fant baptism. There are two ways of accounting for 
these words. Either Methodists and Presbyterians 
are, sure enough, monstrous blockheads, or Dr. How- 

13 



146 E.YILS OF DR, HOWELL. 

ell is incompetent to distinguish between blockheads 
and men of sense. Modesty suggests that this del- 
icate question be left to the arbitrament of a disin- 
terested world. 

Dr. H. notices the solemn disavowals of Method- 
ists and Presbyterians concerning their belief in 
any regenerating or sanctifying energy of baptism, 
and thus says : 

^' They will certainly resent the suspicion that 
they suppose infants may, under any circumstances, 
be lost. But let an unbaptized child of theirs be 
sick, and in danger. The utmost trepidation arises. 
Alarm reigns. Ah ! disguise it as you may, the old 
superstition is still in their hearts (the hearts of 
Methodists and Presbyterians). They believe- — and 
they must evince the fiict — that there is in baptism 
some sort of a mysterious, sacramental efficacy, that 
effects for good the destiny of the child in another 
word !" 

And is there no way for Dr. Howell to defend the 
Dippers without treachery to every principle of hon- 
or ? A few chapters back, Methodists and Presby- 
terians were '' learned and pious," '' intelligent," 
^^evangelical," ''spiritual" minded, and "pure" 
Christian men and women. Now they are such ig- 
noramuses they " scarcely know themselves what 
they believe," and so deceitful, withal, that they 
will even " resent the suspicion" of holding their real 
sentiments! So "pious" and so destitute of truth 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 147 

as to " disguise" their own views ! Waging exter- 
minating war on I>ippersy and yet so awed by their 
greatness as to try to conceal from them, by deceit, 
the sentiments for which they are said to contend 1 
Ah ! Doctor, " disguise it as you may," you are speak- 
ing out of the abundance of your own heart; and 
you are filled with consternation on meeting the 
eternal truths of Pedo-baptists, and knowing you 
never can refute them, you charge upon them such 
little, silly superstitions as can be exposed by any 
boy ; and then, proclaiming a victory for yourself, 
you proceed to your own laudation. We challenge 
you to put away your petty sectarianism, and come 
out into the open field of honorable controversy^ 
meeting, like a fearless warrior, the sentiments we ad- 
vance-, and the arguments we use, without the de- 
ceitful play before the public of manufacturing, your- 
self, sentiments and arguments for us, which you 
deem it easy for you to confute. 

And you can conceive of no way to explain the 
^' trepidation" and '• alarm" of Pedo-baptists, when 
an unbaptized infant is about to die, except the be- 
lief '' that there is in baptism some sort of sacra- 
mental efficacy." Why, sir, since I commenced the 
review of this chapter of your book, such a case oc- 
curred, and to test the truth of your allegations, I 
asked the father, who came for me, if he supposed 
that baptism would have any sanctifying or saving 
efficacy upon his dying babe. His agonized reply 



148 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

was, ''Oh! no; "but it may liaA^e some on me. I 
have not yet discharged my duty. This infant is 
the Lord's, and I have not yet by baptism made the 
proper acknowledgment of this great truth." Dip- 
pers suffer no " apprehension," or " alarm" on such 
occasions; because they have shut infants out of the 
covenant of grace, and the kingdom of God; and 
have, to a fearful extent, hardened their hearts 
against the tender sympathies of the gospel by ex- 
cluding, from the kingdom of Grod and the com- 
munion of saints, the millions of God's own regen- 
erated children, who refuse to submit to the human 
dogma of dipping in green and stagnant ponds, in- 
stead of the sprinkling of clear water, as the Lord 
has appointed. — Ez. 36 : 25. 

In the next place, our author tries his skill at 
perverting the several words of '' the Protestant 
sects." His spite seems more particularly angry at 
the Westminster Confession of Faith, and to expose 
his unfairness here, will sufficiently vindicate all. 
From this book he quotes and argues as^ follows : 

'' The visible church consists of all those through- 
out the world that profess the true religion, together 
with their children, and is the kingdom of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of 
which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. 
It follows, of course, necessarily, that the children 
of those who do not ' profess' — are not in the church. 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 149 

and for them there is no ordinary possibility of sal- 
vation." 

Here we may remark that the word '' ordinary" 
means " according to established order." Now, has 
Christ established it as a rule and order of his 
kingdom, that all who believe in him, shall confess 
him before men, separate from the world, and unite 
with his church ? If so, this is the " ordinary" way 
of salvation. If others are saved, it is plainly in 
an extraordinary way. If, then, the declared order 
of salvation requires believers to unite with the vis- 
ible church, without excluding from eternal life be- 
lievers, idiots, or infants, not possessing such advan- 
tages, then, plainly, the book is right. But if the 
established order of salvation be out of the church, 
then, plainly, the book is wrong. Dippers, in con- 
demning this sentence, seem to favor the doctrine, 
that the established order of salvation is out of the 
church, and; of course, other things being equal, an 
adult or an infant is safer out of the church than in 
it ! If this be not the point of the remarks, I do 
not understand them. 

A few words by way of illustrating the refined 
manner in which the Dippers speak of others, shall 
close our review of this chapter : 

'-'- It is affirmed that they do not, especially among 
us, [our influence is so great,] credit this doctrine of 
baptismal efficacy, nor believe that baptism is neces- 
sary to the salvation of infants. If not, they do not 

13* 



150 EVILS OF DR. HOYV^ELL. 

believe their books ! If not, they do not believe 
their teachers ! Why do they still hear, and sustain, 
and obey them ? We have now seen that the whole 
Pedo-baptist world make the salvation of infants 
conditional [on baptism]. If Pedo-baptist doctrines 
on this subject be true, untold millions of infants 
are damned I Never did the human mind conceive 
of doctrines more absurd and revolting." 

This is only a small sample of the stuff found in 
this chapter. They certainly more resemble the 
ravings of a bad temper than the sober diction of a 
gentle follower of the lowly Jesus. The author 
himself is better informed, and this whole display is 
for sectarian display, regardless of the judgment of 
God. 



CHAPTER X. 



** INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL; BECAUSE IT LEADS ITS ADVOCATES 



Why, asks the reader, are not Pedo-baptists as 
obedient to their Lord and Saviour as Immersion- 
ists ? No, no, say our opponents. We Dippers are 
the only people on earth who obey Christ. Charity, 
humility, zeal and meekness are nothing without 
immersion. No obedience can be rendered without 
immersion. To be "pious and evangelical" without 
immersion, is dreadful rebellion. Nothing will do 
but immersion. But let us see, in the words of our 
accusers, what rebellion we are guilty of: 

'' 1. Infant baptism leads its advocates into re- 
bellion against the authority of Christ in regard to 
the persons to be baptized. These are described 
definitely in the apostolic commission." 

Then let us look closely at each clause of this 
commission with true intent to find the " definite 
description." (a) " Go ye into the world." This 
clause answers the question, where are we all to go ? 



152 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL^ 

Ans. ^' Into all the world." (b) '^ And preacli the 
gospel to every creature." This clause answers three 
questions. What must we do ? Ans. " Preach.^' 
What must we preach ? Ans. '^ The gospel." To 
whom must we preach the gospel ? Ans. " To every 
ereature." 

What is the gospel ? Ans. (c) " He that believ- 
eth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that be- 
lieve th not, shall be damned." Then, who are to be 

baptized ? Ans. . Well, then^ who are to be 

saved? Ans. ^' He that believeth, and is baptized.'' 
What do you observe in regard to the time of these 
three facts? Ans. ''Is baptized" is in time past, 
"believeth'' is in time present, and ^' shall be saved,'' 
in time future, and baptism in the order of time is 
placed first by the Lord himself; because it always 
had been administered in infancy. He does not here 
describe the proper subject of baptism, but the proper 
subject of salvation. It is an unfounded and incon- 
siderate assumption, that these words describe the 
subjects of baptism, {d) The last clause, "But he 
that believeth not, shall be damned," forbids bap- 
tism to no one, but describes the qualification for 
damnation — unbelief. And by it the unbeliever 
shall be damned, whether baptized or not. Even 
the reputed potency of immersion cannot save him. 

Then they are rebelling against Christ who enact 
their own mistakes and thoughtless blunders into 
laws to govern him and his church. The subjects 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 153 

of baptism were described long before Christ sent 
his disciples into all the world; and he chose to 
make no change in the ancient law on this subject. 
He simply gave baptism in charge to them, without 
defining the qualifications, as they had already been 
baptizing under his direction by the rules that had 
always regulated the ordinance. The ancient rules 
provide that all shall be baptized who come into the 
visible church, whether they be infants, unbelievers 
who profess faith, or true believers, who from the 
heart abjure sin and Satan. Accordingly, we find 
that the adult women and their infant children, who 
came into the house of Jacob after the slaughter of 
the Shechemites, were baptized before they united in 
the visible worship of the God of Abraham."^ 

The children of Israel, adult and infant, were every 
one baptized unto Moses, at the E.ed Sea, by Grod 
himself, with rain showered upon them, on dry 
ground, between two walls of ice ; and it was in- 
tended as an example for our imitation. f When the 
kingdom of God was formally organized at Mount 
Sinai, the adults all solemnly professed obedience, 
saying, ^^ All that the Lord saitb, will we hear and 
do," and Moses, by God^s express command, bap- 
tized the whole nation, infants and adults, and organ- 
ized them into the visible kingdom of the Lord, when 

* GeiL 34 and 35. f E^od, 14: 22; 15: 8. Ps. 11: 11. 
1 Cor. 10: 1, 6. 



154 EYILS OF DR. HOWELL, 

the Lord eame down, took the kingdom, and gave 
laws to the people."^ 

The baptism of infants and adults was ever after- 
wards practiced in the church. When Jesus con- 
versed with Nicodemus, he declared that no one 
could enter the visible kingdom except by baptism. 
And repeatedly he declared of infants that they were 
in the kingdom, and^ of course, that they had been 
baptized. Accordingly, when the apostles went out^ 
in obedience to their Lord's great commission^ they 
baptized the households of Lydia and the jailer ,"j- and 
many others-, without a word about professing faith, 
except by the parents. An adult ought not to be 
baptized without faith ; because he cannot enter into- 
the kingdom of God without faith ; but an infant,, 
being born spiritually within the kingdom in personal 
innocency without faith^ ought also to be baptized 
without faith,, to place him visibly whev.e he is really. 
If he die in infancy, he is saved because .he dies 
witbin the kingdom. If he dies out of the kingdom, 
he must be lost. These principles are so plain to 
every reader of the Bible^ that it is needless to dwell 
upon them. 

Then, it is plain that the Dippers rebel against 
Christ in refusing to recognize as members of his 
kingdom those whom he has plainly commanded them 
to receive in his name. If we consider the plainness 
with which this command is given, and the perspiou- 
* Exod. 19. t -^cts, 16„ 



EVILS or DR. HOWELL. 155 

ity with which are recorded so many examples of its 
fulfilment, it is amazing to view the obstinate preju- 
dice and blind fanaticism with which it is opposed- 
How terrible is the rebellion of those who not only 
break this command, but teach others to condemn it; 
and foist their own prejudices into the place of 
Christ's laws ! They shut the kingdom of heaven 
against infants, and will not allow them a place in it, 
either visibly or spirituallj^, and when, by bare shame, 
they are forced to admit that those dying in infancy 
are saved, still they invent for it schemes of their 
own by which infants are represented as saved by 
grace, quite out of the covenant of grace, and placed 
among the redeemed, while the}^ are out of the king- 
dom of G-od ! This awkward and foolish philosophy 
of their own they place before the people as the 
teaching of divine wisdom ; and thus with '' their 
puerilities," they scandalize Christ and his gospel. 
They are the " rebels." 

2. '' Infant baptism offers an indignity to the au- 
thority of Christ by dispensing with the appointed 
profession of faith as a condition of baptism." 

This is a simple begging of the question at issue. 
Who '• appointed " a profession of faith as a ^'^ con- 
dition of baptism" '? Our author gives us no au- 
thority but his own. In vain we look for it in the 
apostolic commission. Inspired examples do not 
sustain the assumption. The Shechemitish infants 
in the house of Jacob made no profession of faith 



156 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 

wlien tliey were made clean to appear before God at 
Bethel. The infants in the arms of their parents 
at the Red Sea, whom God^ for an example to us, 
"baptized unto Moses, made no such profession. The 
infants at Mount Sinai whom Moses by baptism sane- 
tified, organized with their parents into the- visible 
kiugdom of God, made no such profession. Again^ 
and again, they stood before the Lord to enter into 
covenant with Him, to obey Him and to be His people. 
All the men of Israel stood with their captains, elders, 
and officers, \X\^\x little ones ^ wives, and strangers, from 
the hewer of wood to the drawer of water — they a//, 
great and small, entered into covenant with the Lord 
and were baptized by sprinkling with water as well 
as blood,^ without one word of profession from the 
infants. 

Lydia's and the jailer's households made no pro- 
fession of faith, when they were baptized with their 
parents by the commissioned apostles.f 

Then go your way with your '^ appointed condition 
of baptism," till you learn to talk as the Bible does. 
You '' appoint" your own rules ; and then brand 
with rebellion against Christ those who refuse to 
bow to your dictation. Do you mean to usurp his 
throne ? Beware, mortal, beware ! Bow to His 
rule, and give your folly to the winds. 

3. ''It also perpetuates the change of form, and 
thus wholly abolishes baptism itself. This [immer- 

^ Dent. 29 ; 10, 11. Heb. 9:19. \ Acts, 16. 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 157 

sion] is the form of Christian baptism. It is the 
invariable form. Baptism is but a form. The 
form is the thing. Take away the form and nothing 
is left. Destroy the form and you destroy baptism." 

In all these variations of the very same idea, it is 
made sufficiently plain that Dippers do not believe, 
that there is any sense, meaning, or design, in im- 
mersion. It is nothing — absolutely nothing, but 
^'' forinP Take '^ form" away, they say, and no- 
thing at all remains. Then plainly God never 
appointed it ; for there is wisdom, signification, 
illustration, — there is sense and there is mean- 
ing—there is intention and design. There is light, 
life, power, to stir the soul — in all of God's ordi- 
nances. Immersion is a senseless, lifeless thing — 
nothing '• but form." It is a body without a soul. 
It contains no renunciation of Satan, no obligation 
of obedience to Christ, no death to sin, no burial 
of the old man, no resurrection to new life, no birth 
into the visible kingdom. '' The form is the thing. 
Take away the form and nothing is left." We al- 
ways knew this was the view of the Dippers ; but we 
had not expected yet to find so bold an avowal of it. 
They have been a little reserved on this point here- 
tofore. But Dr. H. has boldness for anything. If 
his boldness were placed under the restraints of 
Christian humility, he might be a noble specimen 
of humanity. 

Well, the Dippers may continue their soulless, 

14 



158 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

senseless '' form," but we shall still adhere to the 
Scriptural sprinkling of clean water, which, with life, 
meaning and stirring power, speaks so beautifully of 
the cleansing blood that sprinkles our hearts from 
an evil conscience. Dippers may walk the banks of 
Jordan and stare at their own image in the water ; 
but our eyes shall be turned to the Hermon of glory, 
whence comes the spirit of life like the refreshing 
dews of heaven. And it is set down as an evil for 
which infant baptism is to answer, that it excludes a 
senseless foron^ that has nothing at all in it ! This 
is a praise instead of a fault. 

Oar author further says : 

^' To immerse infants would be, to say the least, 
very inconvenient, and not always, perhaps, entirely 
safe." 

Yes, everybody knows that ; and it is an un- 
answerable argument against immersion. The Grod 
of mercy never did appoint as an ordinance of re- 
ligion a senseless form^ that would endanger the 
life of those that are by it to have a visible entrance 
into His kingdom. And Dippers, for pure love of a 
mere forra^ without sense or design, will exclude 
from the kingdom of Grod those who belong to it by 
the solemn declaration of Christ ! They know that 
if they admit them to be in the covenant of grace, 
they must baptize them ; because that " covenant 
has baptism annexed." They know that if infants be 
in the kingdom of God, they must be baptized; 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 159 

because they cannot visibly enter it except they be 
*' born of water." So, for the sake of immersion, a 
mere form^ they dispense with baptism altogether, 
and exclude infants from the covenant of grace and 
the kingdom of God. Immersion is evil, and only 
evil, and that continually. What a pity that God's 
people should cling to such an evil ! a dead/6>?7?^ — 
an indention for exclusiveness. 

4. " Infant baptism prevents the obedience to 
Christ of believers." 

And how, pray, does it do that ? Why, they re- 
fuse to desecrate baptism with a mere form desti- 
tute alike of sense and design. Where has Christ 
required believers or anybody else to practice im- 
mersion, or any other senseless /br^^z. 1 

With the exception of the usual flings, jibes, and 
sneers, the foregoing items include the whole matter 
of this chapter. 



CHAPTER XI. 

"infant baptism is an evil; because of the connection 
it assumes with the moral and keligious training op 
children." 

After a careful study of this chapter we are un- 
able to see any definite object which the author 
would have placed before his mind. There is no 
show of argument. He seems to us to have turned 
his pen loose, and rattled along at random, caring 
nothing for what he said. Meagre as it is, we must 
take it. It is the best they can give^ all that we can 
get. 

1. We have a dish of Baltimore statistics, pur- 
porting to show the relative numbers of conver- 
sions in Sunday Schools conducted by the several 
churches in that city, in which the Dippers claim 
the banner, of course. This argument (pardon the 
abuse of the word) is an attempt to settle a doc- 
trinal question by statistics, got up by a party for 
their own purposes, in a single city ! It leaves the 
Bible out of the question ; and, when reduced to 
logical form, runs thus : 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 161 

"Wliateyer is done in Baltimore is authoritative 
for Christendom, 

But in Baltimore the Dippers excelled all others ; 
Therefore infant baptism is a nullity ! Bravo I 

2. In the baptism of children, so far as we know, 
Christian parents publicly declare their purpose of 
training up their '' children in the nurture and ad- 
monition of the Lord." This our author thinks is 
extremely frivolous. He says, '• And what do they 
yow ? Why, that they will really do what God 
Almighty has commanded them to do !" He then 
proceeds to sneer at the idea, that Christians will 
vow to fulfil their obligations. What does he 
mean ? Men of God in ail ages have vowed. What 
would he have us to vow ? If we must not vow to 
do our duty, we must either vow to do wrong, or not 
vow at all. Paul had a vow upon him at Cenchrea. 
Did he vow to do something wrong, or to do his 
duty ? The Dippers may answer that. 

3. Finally, our author says, " Infant baptism 
leads, in moral and religious training, directly into 
deception regarding the way of salvation. Other 
sinners may require to be born again ; but these 
have been purified by baptism. They are not ex- 
horted to personal religion ; but warned against per- 
sonal apostasy ;" with a great deal of the same kind. 

He shall answer this slander himself. On page 
140 he contradicts every word of this foul Billings- 
gate. He there says : 

14^ 



162 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

^' They [Pedo-baptists] preach to all alike, and 
boldly declare to sinners of evefi'y class, that if they 
are saved at all, it must be alone by the grace of 
Grod in Jesus Christ our Lord, whom they can ap- 
proach only as penitent believers^ and whose Spirit 
must renew and sayictify their hearts?'' 

There is Pr. Howell versus Dr. Howell ; and he 
may settle the quarrel he has got up with himself, 
as best he can. 



CHAPTEE XII. 



(( 



INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL; BECAUSE IT IS THE GRAND 
FOUNDATION UPON WHICH RESTS THE UNION OF CHURCH AND 



This chapter is really the poorest thing purport- 
ing to be an argument that we ever have read. It 
consists merely of quotations from history, with 
broad and sweeping assertions. We must give a 
few examples to show the public what sort of attack 
satisfies our opponents : 

1. The first position to prove that infant baptism 
" is the grand foundation upon which rests the union 
of Church and State, is the fact that all State 
churches have practiced infant baptism. 

Every one can see at a glance, that it would 
be just as logical to conclude that infant baptism 
is the grand instrumentality for keeping every 
man's head on his shoulders ; for every individual 
who was ever known to practice that ordinance 
did have a head. It is but a few years since the 
Dippers warned the people, that the Bible Society 
would unite Church and State. Then came the 



164 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

work of Sunday Scliools, and they were almost con- 
vulsed with fear for the liberties of the country. 
Then came Education and Missionary Societies, 
when the Dippers grew frantic, and declaimed with 
vehemence against the dangerous institutions. But 
when Temperance began to close the doggeries, 
one could not repress sympathy on hearing their 
doleful lamentations. Liberty was gone ! Church 
and State almost united ; and the earnest creatures 
really seemed to believe it ! But finding themselves 
unable to stay the flood of light and liberty, and 
having excommunicated many of their best members 
for uniting in these noble institutions, they at last 
fell in, and went quietly to work with others ; and 
seem already to have forgotten their old croaking. 
Some State churches practice dipping. Is dipping, 
then, the '' grand foundation upon which rests the 
union of Church and State" ? 

Again, '' He who defends infant baptism, defends 
the union of Church and State. Destroy infant 
baptism and you destroy the union of Church and 
State." 

We are opposed to the estaUuhment of any 
Church by State authority or legislation. But we 
ardently hope to see the State and Church in a 
glorious "union" governed by the laws of Christ, 
whose kino-dom shall so fill the earth as that the 

o 

State will be last in the blessed union. 

To make the Church dependent on the State, or 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 165 

the State dependent on the Church is wicked ; but 
to unite these two institutions of God under the reign 
of Great Immanuel, will be the consummation of 
the latter-day glory. When that glory comes, ac- 
cording to Dr. Howell's own showing, infant baptism 
must everywhere prevail. If he were as much op- 
posed to State establishments as to the blessed 
^* union" of the two into one happy organization, ap- 
pljang no laws but Christ's, he would be a pretty 
orthodox American. 

That happy '' union" will come in spite of Dip- 
pers and immersion, and then all the children will 
grow up in the church, and they will never learn 
anything else but to be in the church ; because Satan 
shall be bound, and the Dippers will be converted 
to sprinkling clean water just as sure as Ezekiel's 
prophecy is the truth of God. Then there will be 
none to molest or destroy in all the mountain of "the 
Lord. 

Why, it would be no worse in me to try to prove 
that famine is caused by the Dippers in abusing the 
water ; because famines have more or less prevailed 
in " every country" where Dippers are found ! This 
is really all we find in the twelfth chapter. Wherever 
he finds State establishments, he finds infant bap- 
tism ; therefore, infant baptism produces State es- 
tablishments. The sun also shines wherever it is 
practiced ; is it the cause of sunshine ? 



CHAPTEE Xm. 

BECAUSE IT LEADS TO KEUGIOtTS 

3UTI0NS." 

This is a long chapter ; but the whole argument 
is comprehended in one proposition. Infant baptism 
is made responsible for every evil that existed in all 
the countries where it existed. A more vicious 
mode of reasoning never was adopted. Every one 
at all acquainted with the history of persecution, 
knows that it always sprung out of contracted bigotry 
entirely independent of any forms of baptism. Nor 
are the martyrs free from blame. They were often 
as bigoted as their persecutors; and would have per- 
secuted, if they had possessed the requisite power. 
They often coveted persecution as a means of enrol- 
ling their names among the martyrs. By many, to 
be persecuted and slain for their religion, was deemed 
to be the highest attainment in Christian perfection. 
Others thought they verily did God service in ex- 
terminating heretics from the earth. Both were in 
error. Greater meekness in the persecuted would 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 167 

often have allayed the fury of the persecutors, and 
more forbearance from those in power would some- 
times have won over to unity those who were put to 
death for their obstinacy. 

'^ The first argument " adduced in the chapter be- 
fore uSj to prove that " infant baptism leads to re- 
ligious persecutions/' is in these words : ^' It brings 
into the church the whole population of the country 
where it prevails. All are baptized and admitted to 
membership ;" and of course will just go to killing 
one another ! 

On this puerile jibe, I remark : 

1. It is not true in point of fact. If we begin 
with the first mention of the ordinance, and follow 
the history of the church down to the present day, 
we shall not be able in a single country, even where 
it has prevailed, to find '' the whole population " in 
the church. It is astoundiog that any man should 
venture on such an assertion. 

2. If the assertion were true, it is impossible to 
conceive what would induce the people to persecute 
one another on account of a rite in which they are all 
agreed. There is nothing to persecute for. There 
must of necessity be a difference before persecution 
can exist. 

3. In the very terms of this proposition there is a 
contradiction as palpable as if he had said, ^* Where 
the people are all united, and agree in the same views, 
there must of necessity be division, strife and mui'der." 



168 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

4. In support of this argument our author refers 
to the persecutions in the days of Constantine. But 
our author and every one else must know that infant 
baptism had not the remotest connection with the 
persecutions of those times. He himself admits that 
" infant baptism became general " at that time, and 
of course it could not result in persecution. Be- 
sides, it is not once mentioned as a cause of persecu- 
tion. The persecutions of these and subsequent 
times were the fruit of attempts to bring men to 
uniformity of views, not on the subject of infant 
baptism in which they were " generally agreed ;'' but 
on the subject of the power of the emperor and the 
bishops in ecclesiastical matters. The men of faith 
appealed to the Word of God as the sole authority in 
determining what duties and what homage man is to 
render to God. The party possessing pagan sympa- 
thies were not brought into the church by infant 
baptism, but by the victory of Constantine over 
Licinius. They claimed for the emperor and the 
priesthood the power of enactiug by statutory laws, 
what should be the faith, the worship of the people. 
Those who loved the Word of God would not, could 
not^ yield such power to man. It gives the creature 
preference to the Creator. It is idolatry. These 
principles have formed the ground-work of all the 
persecutions waged by one nominally Christian party 
against another. The party in power have ever 
claimed the authority to direct by law the faith, duty 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 1G9 

and worship, wliicli the other party are to yield to 
God. Infant baptism has caused no persecutions, 
has contributed to the formation of no such opinions, 
and nothing can be more superstitious than to 
ascribe the persecuting spirit in the man to the 
sprinkling of a few drops of water into the face of 
the babe. It is as weak as it would be in me to 
ascribe the persecuting spirit to immersion, which 
began to spread considerably about the time to 
which Dr. H. refers. The doctrines of the trinity, 
universalism, praying to the saints, &c , &c., were 
also prevailing to some considerable extent at the 
same time. Why not refer persecution to them, or 
some of them, as fairly as to infant baptism ? 
Co-existence is not causation. 

In the next place our author raises a mournful 
wail over the poor Dippers, who '^ were hunted down 
and destroyed like wild beasts." This is but too 
true ; in a different sense, however, from that here 
presented. The Dippers in the sixteenth century, 
to which he refers, were so much like "wild beasts," 
that it became necessary to destroy them to prevent 
the destruction of civil society. 

They then, as in more modern times, despised the 
written Word of God, and claimed to have immediate 
inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Some of them then, as 
recently, actually '• burnt the New Testament," alleg- 
ing that " The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 
Tens of thousands are now living who have heard 

15 



170 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

them declare how God spoke audibly to them on 
various subjects, and how He called them to preach 
the Gospel. Three hundred years ago they used the 
very words which are yet in the mouths of their 
brethren. They constantly proclaimed as a truth 
unknown to Pedo-baptists, that there is " one bap- 
tism," and ''but one." Then they cried to Pedo- 
baptists, '' Woe, woe, woe !" as one of their number^ 
stripped naked, did in New England, in the public 
congregation on Sunday, in the days of the persecu- 
tion of Dippers in the '* colonies." She — for it was a 
woman ! was smartly persecuted with rods on her 
bare back for her Christian delicacy ! As now, so 
then, they proclaimed '' the baptism of adult be- 
lievers only." '' Infant baptism," they said, '' is a 
horrible abomination, a flagrant impiety, invented 
by the wicked spirit, and by Nicholas IT., Pope of 
Rome." The Dippers still say it is a popish inven- 
tion, ^' defended by Origen " nearly three hundred 
years before the first pope was seated in the chair ! 
They then, as now, exhorted everybody that had 
been baptized in infancy to come forward and '' re- 
ceive at their hands the true baptism" [immersion]. 
They said, '' We must form a church composed of 
saints only," infants not being " saints." I have 
thus, briefly, in their own words, given their distin- 
guishing views, that all may know that they agree 
with Dippers of this generation and this country. 
They of our day sometimes disown their brethren of 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 171 

the sixteenth century, when their deeds are brought 
to light. In this case it- will be hard to escape ; for 
Dr. H. not only endorses the company, but names 
and approves several prominent individuals of them, 
viz. : Mantz, Grebel, Blourock, Roubli, Brodtlein, 
Herjer, &c. 

Let us now set Dr. H. right in a few particulars, 
and then we shall be ready to inquire into the per- 
secutions which these '• poor creatures endured." 

1. Dr. H. represents the Dippers as saying to the 
assembled people, " Give us the "Word of God, and 
not the word of Zuingie. Do you keep the doctrines 
of Zuingie ; as for us, we will keep the Word of God." 
These, truly, are the words of the Dippers ; but they 
are here made to mean a very different thing from that 
which they intended. By " the Word of God" they 
meant not the Bible, which '• they burnt;" but the 
^'inward revelation" received by them from the 
Holy Spirit. Zuingle's was the written word. 

2. He represents the Dippers as reminding the 
reformers of their own doctrines about the purity of 
the church, when Zuingie pettishly answered, '• It 
is impossible to make heaven on earth. Christ has 
taught us to let the tares grow among the wheat." 
These words of Zuingie were in answer to the words 
of Grebel, '^ Let us found a church in which there 
shall be no sinP Grebel was one of the Dippers 
who despised the written word, and boasted of the 
inward word, delivered by the spirit ; and so far was 



172 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

be deceived, as to suppose that from the moment of 
immersion, he and his brethren lived '- without sin." 
That is the thing to which Zuingle " pettishly 
answered," as Dr. H. would have it. 

3. Dr. H. laments dolefully over '' fourteen men 
and seven women who were arrested " at Zurich, 
^' and imprisoned on an allowance of bread and water 
in the heretics' tower. After a fortnight's confine- 
ment, by removing some planks in the floor, they 
managed to effect their escape during the night. But 
Dr. H. omits to tell his readers how these brethren 
of his lied to the people, saying, '' An angel had 
opened the prison and led them forth" ! 

Come Dr., you claim these men as our [3^our] 
" brethren," and you must tell the '' whole truth." 

4. Dr. H. says : '' The council [of Zurich] over- 
come in argument, and put to shame by truth, now 
resorted to other measures. They condemned Mantz 
to be drowned, and the sentence was immediately 
executed. Blourock was scourged with rods, and 
banished by the 2^ious Protestants.^'' 

It is true that these two Dippers were treated as 
here described ; but the cause of it was very different 
from that here assigned. These " brethren " of Dr. 
Howell, " maintaining, that the Lord had exhorted 
them to become like little children — began to clap 
their hands [at the close of Zuingle's discourse] and 
skip about in the streets, to dance in a ring, sit on 
the ground^ and tumble each other about. Some 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 173 

burnt the Xew Testament — others falling into con- 
vulsions, pretended to have revelations from the 
Holy Ghost." They proclaimed death and destruc- 
tion to their Pedo-baptist neighbors, frightened the 
ignorant, and disturbed continually the public peace. 
One Thomas Schucker, a member of the fraternity, 
put some gall into a bladder, and proclaimed to his 
brother Leonard, " Thus bitter is the death thou art 
to suffer." He then in a sepulchral voice said, 
" Brother Leonard kneel down." Leonard knelt. 
Then, '-Brother Leonard, arise." Leonard stood 
up. The whole company were now at the highest 
pitch of excitement. But Thomas assured them 
that •' nothing will happen but the will of the Father," 
He commanded his brother again to kneel down, 
and while his brother was kneeling before him, he 
caught up a sword, and with one violent blow severed 
his head from his body, exclaiming : " Now the will 
of the Father is accomplished." The Dippers 
allowed him to escape, but justice overtook him at 
St. Gall. They kept society in a ferment with their 
disorderly conduct, and by discarding the Bible, and 
proclaiming their own inspiration, proclaiming also 
the '' day of the Lord," and the judgment of all who 
would not be immersed. The civil authorities arrested 
them. But '• when they were summoned before the 
tribunals, they declared they did not recognize the 
civil authority!''' As Mantz, one of the leaders, was 
particularly noisy about immersion, they sentenced 

15* 



174 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

him " to be drowned." Blourock, the other leader, 
was not so forward as Mantz, and he was scourged 
with rods. 

But as the Dippers raise a wail so sorrowful, loud 
and long for their poor, persecuted brethren, let us 
inquire still further into this matter. They pro- 
claimed '^ infant baptism a horrible abomination," 
and said, ^' We must form a church composed of 
saints only." One of them, George Jacob, said to 
the people, '^ I am the door. Whosoever entereth by 
me shall find pasture. I am the good shepherd. 
My body I give to the prison ; my life I give to the 
sword, the stake, or the wheel. I am the beginning 
of the baptism and the bread of the Lord." They 
proclaimed to their followers : " We must fall upon 
every ungodly practice, and overthrow them all in a 
day." They forthwith entered the churches, pillaged 
them, and carried away what they chose, and broke 
or burnt the rest. God^ they said, required them to 
do all this. They everywhere declared that they 
were taught inwardly by the Holy Ghost, and had 
no need of the written Word. 

Dr. Howell says, that the Keformers themselves 
at first hesitated, and so they did, like wise men, 
until they examined these extraordinary pretensions. 
As soon, however, as they found by the written Word 
of God, that these besotted bigots were the dupes 
of their own fanaticism, they hesitated no longer. 
On this occasion Melancthon said, '' On the one hand. 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 175 

let US beware of quencliing the spirit of God, and on 
the other, of being led away by the spirit of Satan." 
While the Dippers were carrying destruction all 
around, Luther said, in reference to them, '' I will 
preach, discuss and write ; but I will constrain none ; 
for faith is a voluntary act." Yet Dr. Howell rep- 
resents these Dippers as the fathers of religious 
liberty, and says they were persecuted by Luther 
and Melancthon ! 

Because the reformers practiced infant baptism 
according to the convictions they received from the 
written Word of Grod, the Dippers accused them of 
"forming churches that were not pure and holy." 
They gave way to all the intoxication of fanaticism, 
and cried, " The Spirit ! the Spirit ! and spoke only 
of an internal revelation from Grod," disregarding 
the authority of " the written Word." They de- 
clared themselves authorized by God himself to 
destroy all who were opposed to them, and to estab- 
lish a pure church of believers only ; and they got up 
furious mobs to destroy both Church and State. 
Some of the civil rulers now thought of punishing 
their wickedness ; but Luther said, '• Let them 
preach what they please, for it is the Word of God 
that must march in front of the battle, and fight 
against them." The Dippers cared nothing for the 
Word of God. They had a word in themselves, 
which they believed to be far more authoritative 
than the Bible. Nor did they stop with mobs and 



176 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

threats. They carried fire and sword over the land. 
Luther then said to the civil rulers : " If you do 
not put a mad dog to death, you will perish, and all 
the country with you." This is what Dr. Howell 
calls persecution ! He would be willing to have 
these fanatical Dippers to have killed every one who 
would not submit to immersion. They did butcher 
thousands; but he is not satisfied with that, but 
complains that they were persecuted, because they 
were not sufi*ered to devastate the whole country. 
Here are the words of the Dippers on this occasion : 
'• Like Joshua, we must put all the Canaanites 
[Pedo-baptists] to death." They made one of their 
number king, to rule in the name of the Lord, and 
issued a proclamation, of which the following is a sam- 
ple : '' How long will you sleep ? Arise, and fight 
the battle of the Lord. The time is come. On, 
on, on ! Draw, draw, draw ! Heed not the groans 
of the impious ones [Pedo-baptists]. They will im- 
plore you like children ; but be pitiless. Draw, 
draw, draw ! The fire is burning ; let your sword 
be ever warm with blood. Draw, draw, draw!" 
These, reader, are the words of these poor, meek, 
gentle Dippers, who were so ^' cruelly persecuted " 
and '^'hunted down and destroyed like wild beasts." 
The Dippers drove furiously onward. Fire, blood 
and carnage marked their path. The mild and pious 
elector, Frederick, desired to reclaim these deluded 
fanatics, and was willing to make concessions to 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 177 

pacify their wrath ; but nothing would do. They 
had a revelation from God by the Holy Spirit to 
destroy the Canaanites, and they were determined to 
obey the call of God. Even on the day of battle, 
when a rainbow appeared over them, the leaders 
assured them that this was a token from God that 
victory would that day perch on their standard. 
They madly persisted, rejecting every overture, till 
many of their followers were slain, the leaders be- 
headed, and the rest routed and scattered. After 
all this, it is no wonder if civil rulers for a long time 
watched their movements with suspicion, and even 
kept them under wholesome restraint. These were 
dark days for humanity. We never thought of hold- 
ing the Dippers of the present day responsible for all 
the outrages and the fanaticism of their fathers in 
these dark times. But if Dr. Howell and his two 
publication societies become the apologists of these 
fanatics, and attempt to charge on infant baptism as 
persecution the reduction of these lawless murderers 
to order in civil society, they must expect to be ex- 
posed for their folly. And should they persist in 
their advocacy of these disturbers of the peace, just 
because they practiced immersion and opposed infant 
baptism, they must not wonder if they excite the 
vigilance of those in this free country, who know the 
price of liberty. He represents the Dippers as the 
fathers of American Liberty ! when all the country 
knows that, at the time of the revolution, the Dip- 



178 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

pers did not form a tithe of a tithe in the population ! 
Thev the fathers of American liberty! They, in 
common with all others, love to enjoy it. Kor had 
we suspected them of any feelings inimical to it ; but 
a few such chapters as this would bring us to a seri- 
ous pause. We had not supposed that one man in 
our country would appear as the advocate of the ex- 
travagances or the persecutions of the dark times that 
have gone before Christianity has made great progress 
in all its evangelical denominations, and light has in- 
creased. These advantages have resulted from the la- 
bors of no single denomination ; but each has brought 
its contribution. How contemptible and puerile, then, 
for one to come forward claiming for itself all the 
praise of the ameliorated condition of the world ! 
It is unworthy of the age in which we live ! It is a 
mournful proof that the Dippers are still behind the 
times. May God grant them the understanding of 
His ivritten Worcl^ as well as the inward enlighten- 
ing of His Spirit, and the proper discernment of the 
signs of the times ! 



CHAPTEE XIY. 

"infant BAPTIS1[ is AN" EYIL ; BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY 
TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM." 

A FEW extracts will exhibit the whole strength of 
this chapter : 

" Infant baptism is the first step in the process, 
which soon enslaves the mindj and throughout after- 
life leads captive all its powers. The child, without 
its knowledge or consent, has been subjected to the 
ordinance, in which he makes a profession of re- 
ligion." 

On page 205 of this work the author says : " In- 
fant baptism offers an indignity to the authority of 
Christ, by dispensing with the appointed profession 
of faith." Here he says, that in it the infant " makes 
a profession of religion." There the Doctor is again 
at fault with himself; and, as it is no part of our 
business to reconcile his conflicting statements, we 
leave this work to some leisure hour of his own 
study. 

But what is that terrible '^ process " of which in- 



180 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

fant baptism is the ''first step"? Why, it is the 
training of the child in the religious views of the 
parent. Dr. H. says, '' Infant baptism places men 
in this condition," where they are subjected to be 
trained in the religious views of their parents ! This 
is a very great mistake ; for everybody knows that it is 
hy lirtk children come under the control of their 
parents. If, then, the Dippers are opposed to hav- 
ing children under the control of their parents^ they 
must publish a book against our being born of our 
parents, and try to persuade the people to be born 
of some one else than parents, or not to be born at 
all ! If parents abuse their power, and enslave the 
minds of their children, let them^ and not ho.ptism^ 
answer for it. Facts would show that there are more 
people perfectly free who were baptized in infancy, 
than who were immersed in adult age. 

Again : " Infant baptism is at the foundation of 
the slavery of the nations No choice is left to the 
child." 

It is very superstitious to suppose that baptism, 
administered at any time of life, will take away the 
power of choice. But if simple baptism, with a few 
drops of water on an infant, will deprive him ever 
afterwards of the power of choice, one might fairly 
conclude that immersion would destroy choice and 
reason both in an adult ; and there are some facts 
that have a squinting that way. 

Still again : '' His church is selected for him ; he 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 181 

is bound hand and foot in hopeless slavery.'' Yes, 
poor fellow, and the half is not told ; for he has no 
chance of choosing the family^ the country^ or the 
state^ in which he is to be born and reared. If 
many a poor child were permitted to choose his own 
parents, many, no doubt, would be born in different 
circumstances ! And then the dear little creatures 
are sent to what school, and taught what branches, 
the parent pleases ! Ah, Doctor, this is a terribly 
enslaved world ; and none are more abject than those 
who are under the iron dominion of prejudice, and 
partyism, and bigotry. They lose their eyes with 
their liberty. 

A fourth time : '• In America, the very atmosphere 
we breathe is essentially anti-Pedo-baptistic," and 
that infant baptism " has not its full effect among 
us, is attributable mainly, if not wholly, to the Bap. 
tist element which everywhere so strongly pervades 
the public mind." 

What puerile bravado ! Whj^, a single denomina- 
tion of Pedobaptists — the Methodists — far outnum- 
bers them. Their influence is nearly twice as great. 
Then, the other Pedo-baptist denominations can 
outnumber them, perhaps, twice again; and yet the 
'' Baptist element " is so very prevalent, that the vital 
air is impregnated with so strong an anti-Pedo-bap- 
tist miasm as almost to suffocate independence of 
thought ! Such vanity and egotism must soon illus- 
trate the principle that '' pride goeth before destruc- 

16 



182 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

tion, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Are Dip- 
pers, in such conceited boasts, meditating the meas- 
ures of former times, when they thought to awe the 
world into acquiescence in their infallibility under 
tha inspiration of the Holy Spirit ! Let them try 
their old game, and they shall soon see whether they 
can carry by force what their arguments fail to 
achieve. 



CHAPTER XV. 

"INPANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL; BECAUSE IT ENFEEBLES THE 
POWER OF THE CHTJECH TO COMBAT ERROR." 

This chapter is another long one, with almost no- 
thing in it. Some assertions, assumptions, and 
charges without proof, a ramble over the old ground 
of persecution, and a braggart peroration, make up 
the chapter. It is amazing that any Christian should 
turn from the Bible to the vicious abuses of its doc- 
trines among men of corrupt minds, in order to con- 
fute its teachings. The simple question before us is, 
Does the Bible authorize infant baptism ? If bad 
men practiced the baptism of their infants, the same 
men also observed the Lord's supper. Nor did they 
abuse infant baptism more than the other ordinance. 
But their abuse of the one, or the other ordinance, 
forms no argument against either. The fact merely 
proves that they are bad men, not that these are bad 
doctrines or bad ordinances. 

Again : If persecution waged by Pedo-baptists 
forms an argument against infant baptism, then the 



184 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 

torrents of blood which the Dippers of the sixteenth 
century caused to flow, must furnish a very deep, dark, 
red argument against immersion ! But when we ar- 
gue against immersion, we do not introduce the ig- 
norance, bigotry, superstition, and blood-shed of its 
devotees in different ages. The argument would be 
invalid. We never appeal to these facts but to place 
the Dippers in the very position in which they at- 
tempt to place us, so as to open their eyes to the value 
of their own argument. If we must answer for all 
the bad behavior of those who have practiced in- 
fant baptism, then, plainly on the same principle, they 
must answer for all the atrocious wickedness of those 
who have practiced immersion. If the corrupt Latin 
church practiced infant baptism, it must be remem- 
bered that the corrupt Greek church practiced both 
infant baptism and immersion. So the Dippers, on 
their own principles of argument, are held to a 
double responsibility for atrocities and villanies as 
deep and dark as hell itself They must see that 
they are undermining a mountain, and the sooner 
they succeed the sooner they must be crushed be- 
neath its massive rocks. 

Having offered these remarks on the general prin- 
ciples of this chapter, we now propose very briefly to 
review a few only of those unworthy jibes in which 
Dr. Howell is so prolific : 

"Infant baptism, whenever operating without re- 
straint, inevitably corrupts the communities that 



EYILS OF DR. HOWELL. 185 

practice it." To this bold assertion we oppose the 
pure and staid morality, intelligence, and virtue of 
Scotland, New England, and Pedo-baptists generally. 
We declare that in the practice of infant baptism in 
this free country we have felt none of the imagined 
^' restraint" of the self-conceited Dippers ; and we 
are ready any day to compare moral standiog with 
them by exhibiting equal numbers of families on 
each side of the question from any part of our ex- 
tended country. 

Dr. H. says that at the time of the reformation 
the Dippers '^ were found in every pkce, gallantly 
battling in the cause." No; they were ^' gallantly 
battling " for their own infallibility under the imme- 
diate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and as '^ valiant- 
ly battling" against the written Word of God^ and 
the civil rights of their opponents^ as we have al- 
ready shown. 

Again : '^ The reformation has proved a failure." 
Croakers have been uttering that a long time ; but in 
what is its failure ? It has failed to establish im- 
mersion, the infallibility of the Pope, the inspiration 
of Dippers, and many other things which it never 
undertook. But it has not failed to diffuse the Bible, 
religion, civilization, scienee, liberty, and literature, 
the things at which it had ever aimed. What have 
the Dippers achieved in these several departments ? 

Dr. H. represents all the Pedo-baptists as yielding 
the question of the Scriptural authority of infant 

16^ 



186 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

baptism. This, we suppose, must have been intended 
io raise the horrors of those of his own party who 
happen to live in corners remote from the light ; and 
he no doubt hopes that being of his own party they 
will forgive him for saying in the former part of his 
book, that they all appeal to the Scriptures in sup- 
port of this doctrine. 

" The doctrine of hereditary claims to the cov- 
enant of grace is an appalling abuse among Presby- 
terians and Calvinists generally." So says Dr. H. 
But as he has no more authority to assert this than 
his ^' brethren" of the sixteenth century had to as- 
sert their own infallibility, and as we have as much 
authority to deny as he has to affirm^ a simple de- 
nial will be a sufficient reply to this '' appalling" as- 
sumption. 

These are poor materials for an argument to prove 
that infant baptism '* enfeebles the power of the 
church to combat error ;" but this is all we find^ 
and being the best the Dippers can offer in a region 
so scanty of materials, they must be excused for do- 
ing no better. 



CHAPTEE XVI. 

" INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT INJURES THE CREDIT 
OF RELIGION WITH REFLECTING MEN OF THE WORLD." 

OuE, Doctor's ''reflecting Dien" are tliose pseudo- 
philosophers — free-thinkers — who are governed more 
by their own reason than by '• the wisdom which is 
from above." They are represented as being offend- 
ed by the simple rite of infant baptism, which '' in- 
jures the credit of religion among reflecting men of 
the world." Perhaps the doctor has not been inform- 
ed that the same men are equally offended, when they 
see " men and women taking a mere pinch of bread 
and a small sup of wine" in commemoration of the 
Saviour's death, '• as if any one could believe that 
such a thing can make them holy." The doctor and 
his " reflecting men of the world" must learn to lay 
their pride and reason at the foot of the cross before 
any of them can be saved. When God commands, 
we shall not wait to ask what •' reflecting men of the 
world" will think of us if we obey. They must yield 
to Grodj not Grod to them. And pray, what is done 



188 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

to the honor of religion when ^^ reflecting men of the 
world" see Christian pastors courting their approba- 
tion in order to swell their party numbers ? Such a 
church may have a name, a form, and numbers, and 
" worldly" laudation ; but piety can flourish only 
where the Will of God is supreme. 

But let the Doctor tell us how infant baptism thus 
"injures the credit of religion among reflecting men 
of the world." 

'' It does so, in the first place, because it is really 
in itself irrational." 

Well, this is assuming a great deal. Are Dr. H., 
Dippers, and ^' reflecting men of the world," the only 
creatures that God has endowed with reason ? How 
exquisitely modest in them to condemn as " irration- 
al" all the great lights which have shined in Pedo- 
baptist churches ! The highest wisdom that we have 
discovered, is to obey Him. who commands us to re- 
ceive little children in His name, and who tells us 
of but one way to place his name on any one by 
baptism. Until Dr. H. can tell another way of trans- 
ferring the name of Christ, he may pay his homage 
to '' reflecting men of the world ;" but Jesus shall 
have ours. 

'' In the second place, infant baptism injures the 
credit of religion because it is practiced without any 
authority" ! ! 

This is a mistake, for the Apostle Paul, in the 
tenth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 189 

declares that their '^ fathers were all baptized" at the 
Red Sea, and this, among other things, was intended 
as an example for our instruction and imitation ; and 
Moses says that at the time of this model baptism 
they had among them little '' ones." Now, if some 
of them were little children, and they were all — 
every one — baptized, and that by a divine example 
for us to follow, with what face can it be said that 
*' it is practiced without authority" ? True, we have 
no authority from Dr. Howell's '^ reflecting men of 
the world ;" but we have what is far better — the au- 
thority of a divine example, and the approbation of 
men as reflective and far more pious — men as honest, 
studious, and thoroughly learned — the preceptors 
of his '' reflecting men of the world." 

^- Infant baptism, in the third place, injures the 
credit of religion by casting suspicion on the whole 
subject." 

Here Pedo-baptists are represented as deceitful. 
Take his own words : '' If I find a man equivocating, 
and double-dealing with me on one subject, I suspect 
he may on another ; and if T detect him so acting 
in several instances, I withdraw my confidence from 
him entirely." This is applied to Pedo-baptists gen- 
erally. Leaving all mankind to judge here, and 
God hereafter, whether we deserve such blurs, we 
may try the Doctor's rule on himself. 

If he '' withdraws his confidence entirely" from all 
who are guilty of '• double-dealing," he must have 



190 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

lost all confidence in himself long ago ; for at one 
time he says Pedo-baptists are " learned and pious," 
at another, he declares they are " irrational" and 
" corrupt." JS'ow he says many of them deny '' bap- 
tismal regeneration;" again, they "all proclaim it as 
a condition of infant salvation." Once he says in- 
fant baptism dispenses with ^ ^' profession of faith ;" 
again, he declares that in it the infant '^ makes a 
profession of religion." The time would fail me 
here to record the one-tenth pari? of his ^Mouble- 
dealing." If, then, other men adopt his rule, and 
" withdraw [their] confidence entirely from him" he 
will be in a deplorable condition. It is very '' ir- 
rational" for any man to contradict himself so often 
in one small book. What will "reflecting men of the 
world" think of it ? '' Suspicion is awakened, and 
men of the world are repelled by it from religion." 

" Finally, infant baptism, as practiced among us, 
is a well-arranged sectarian device." 

Wonderful ! Dangerous thing that ! There are 
Congregationalists, Methodists, five bodies of Pres- 
byterians, Episcopalians, &c.j &c., who practice it ! 
What a '^ sectarian device" ! All but the Dippers 
hold to the faith ; and if we count the G-reek church, 
three-fourths of the Dippers themselves practice it ! 
Why, it is almost like the Bible — all cling to it but 
the Dippers ; and of late years, since they threw 
away the foolish notion of their own inspired infalli- 
bility, and ceased, like Roman Catholics, to burn the 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 191 

WBitten Word of Grod, tbej adopt the Bible, except 
in regard to such things as *• awaken suspicion in 
men of the world, and repel them from religion." 
When thej shall have learned to take the Bible as 
the only rule of faith, and teach '' reflecting men of 
the world" to reflect on the authority of God instead 
of their own conceits, they, too, will gain a position 
whence they can see the wisdom of the rite. 

If infant baptism, practiced by so many denomi- 
nations, all having communion with one another, be 
a sectarian device, what is immersion, practiced by 
a single party, and that party so exclusive as to de- 
bar all the rest from Christian fellowship, claiming 
exclusively for itself all the prerogatives of the 
Church of God ? 



CHAPTEE XVII 



" INFANT BAPTISM IS AN ETIL ; BECAUSE IT IS THE GREAT 
BARRIER TO CHRISTIA^^ UNION." 



Oup^ author's strength seems to be on the wane^ 
and his chapters are growing very short. The fol- 
lowing extracts exhibit the whole strength of this 
one. 

" Christian union and infant baptism never can 
exist together. But Christian union is imperative 
upon us all. Whatever prevents it is an evil. In- 
fant baptism prevents it. Therefore infant baptism 
is an evil." 

There is a mistake in this syllogism. Everybody 
knows that if we should give up infant baptism to- 
day, the Dippers would suffer no union or commun- 
ion wath us until we were immersed. A dozen of 
denominations, containing a dozen times as many 
numbers as the Dippers, must yield their consciences 
and their intelligent convictions to satisfy the rabid 
sectarianism of one party in order to secure Chris- 
tian union ! Here is a sharp smack of that same 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 193 

old inspired infallibility, wliicli the Dippers have 
ever claimed for themselves. Even when they have 
been forced to acknowledge the supreme authority 
of the written Word, they have found out the device 
of claiming to be the only infallible expounders of 
that Word, which in effect is no better than the old 
claim to inspiration. Pedo-baptists, in Christian 
liberality, have been willing for Dippers, to follow 
their own convictions in regard to the subjects and 
the mode of Christian baptism ; and for centuries 
they have held out to them the right hand of fellow- 
ship, but all to no purpose. In vain do we entreat 
— in vain does Christ command and pray that his 
disciples be one in love and union. The Dippers will 
consent to nothing short of our yielding the liberty 
wherewith Christ has made us free — the liberty of 
thinking for ourselves. If we would yield our re- 
sponsibility to Christ, consult the whims of '• reflect- 
ing men of the world," hold ourselves answerable to 
Dippers, take for truth infallible all they say, con- 
trary to conviction and conscience leave our children 
out of the church, uninstructed in what we believe 
to be God's will revealed in the Bible, and then, un- 
der their mandate, exchange the sprinkling of clean 
water for a dip even in some green pool, or stagnant 
pond, all would be right with them, and we then 
might have union ; but whether it would be Chris- 
tian union^ would still require to be left to their 
decision without a murmur from our consciences. 

17 



194 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

Then it is plain that it is not inftmt baptism, nor 
even immersionj that prevents '- Christian union.'* 
It is plainly the arrogant claim of the Dippers to 
infallibility. Then we will correct the syllogism : 
* Whatever prevents Christian union, is an evil. 
But the arrogance of the Dippers prevents it. 
Therefore the arrogance of the Dippers is an eviP — 
a flao^rant sin ao;ainst the love of God. 

The arrogance of the Dippers '' is therefore an 
offence against Christ, an offence against the peace 
and harmony of his people, an offence against the 
souls of men." And who is responsible for this 
monstrous evil ? Those, of course, who introduced 
it, and who still adhere to '^ its practice." ^' For all 
its calamities they must account to God and men. 
We solemnly declare ourselves innocent of its enor- 
mities. We never can approve it." This is Dr. 
Howell's gun, turned upon himself And because 
he and his party do not approve infant baptism, we 
are to have no Christian union ! They cannot leave it 
to the Master to judge ! they must take that matter 
into their own hands ! 

They cannot abominate infant baptism more than 
we do immersion ; but having borne our testimony 
against it, we leave it for the Master to judge be- 
tween them and us, and we extend to them over and 
beyond what we deem a hurtful error, the right 
hand of fellowship. They, sullen and moody, say in 
effect, '' We are the people^ and you are in error. 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 195 

We are infallible expounders of God's Word, and 
you are ' irrational.' Put away your unreason- 
able obstinacy, and yield conscience, intellect, emo- 
tion, and will, to our infallible understanding of 
God's Word, and we can have union ; but on no 
other terms." This is the language of their con- 
duct, and they cannot deny it. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

" INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT PREVENTS THE SALU- 
TARY IMPRESSION WHICH BAPTISM WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE 
UPON THE MINDS OF BOTH THOSE WHO RECEIVE IT AND THOSE 
WHO WITNESS ITS ADMINISTRATION. 

This chapter is introduced with a just account of 
the impression intended to be made on the mind of 
the recipient, and of those who witness it ; but it is 
contended that immersion alone is suited to make 
such impressions. The oft-repeated idea of '' the 
watery grave" is the only reason offered for the prefer- 
ence given to immersion. Let us once more remind 
our opponents that this idea of burial, by every fair 
rule of interpreting the apostle's words, is found not in 
the marine?' of baptizing, but in the visible eff'ect pro- 
duced by baptism. After baptism the old man is to 
be seen no more. He is dead. He is buried. The 
old man is buried; and if buried mean immersed^ 
then it is the old man that is immersed. But bap- 
tism is applied not to the old man, but to the nev\ 
When the new man is baptized, the old one is buried, 
and the burying is the effect of baptism, and not the 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 197 

manner of baptism. There is also an effect on the 
new man. He rises to view in a new life. Baptism 
places him among the saints, where he never ap- 
peared before. He is like one just born into a 
family, where he never was a member before. He is 
like one raised from the dead to take his place in 
society. Then the burial and the resurrection are 
visible effects of baptism, and not the manner of 
baptizing. 

It is plain, then, that the proper " impression" de- 
pends on a proper conception in the premises. If 
the proper conception of baptism be that of a burial 
rite performed on the old man to displace him from 
society and from view in corruption and death, then 
the preference must be given to immersion ; and it 
is to be administered to the old man^ not to the be- 
liever, who is already '-'- born of God," and is the 
new man. But if the proper conception of baptism 
be the cleansing of the neio man from the corruption 
and death of the old m.an with an effectual applica- 
tion of '-^ the blood of sprinkling" by the bedewing 
Spirit descending from above and imparting life, 
then baptism is to be administered by sprinkling 
clean water, not on the old man., but on the new — 
on all who stand in the new kingdom of grace ; 
whether believing adults, or innocent babes who 
have not by personal transgression departed from 
the kingdom of God. 

Our author tells of tears which have flowed on 

17* 



198 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

witnessing immersion. If tears contain any scrip- 
tural argument, we could record as many and as 
large ones that have appropriately accompanied the 
sprinkled drops of baptismal water. But tears 
merely prove the earnestness and deep feelings of 
those who shed them, and, although valuable for 
other purposes, they can contribute little with men 
of sense to settle controversies about doctrine. 

Dr. H. says, " But the sprinkling of a babe de- 
stroys every salutary result." This is true, no doubt, 
in regard to those who have prejudices against it. 
The same is true of immersion in regard to those 
who do not believe it to be the way of baptizing. 
If the sprinkling of babes must be discontinued, 
because dipping Christians disapprove it, then im- 
mersion must be discontinued, because baptizing 
Christians disapprove that; unless Dippers are en- 
titled to special privileges. 

If tears would answer for arguments, they are 
not wanting in relation to the baptism of infants. 
Nor do we doubt but with God the tears of his 
Pedo baptist children are as carefully bottled as 
those of his dipping children. A peculiar notion 
this, that no one's tears are noticed but those of 
Dippers ! There is the old odor of their inspired 
infallibility. 

Our author thinks no " salutary'' or " lasting" 
impression is made by infant baptism. We fear he 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 199 

is not informed on that subject. The writer, now 
'' sprinkled with gray hairs," remembers well an ap- 
peal of his venerable mother in early childhood. 
He had been guilty of some delinquency, when his 
mother, having pointed out the sin, said, ''• My dear 
child, when you were an infant, you were the Lord's 
— you were born his. I stood before God, before 
the church, and before the minister, and said you 
were the Lord's. In your baptism I vowed that by 
the help of His grace you should always be the 
Lord's. You were baptized in His holy name ; be- 
cause you were His. In His name the church re- 
ceived you, and the water which is an emblem of 
Christ's precious blood that cleanses our sinful na- 
ture, was sprinkled upon you. You have no liberty 
to sin. How can you forsake God, and His church, 
and His blood ? How can you serve Satan ? If 
you have sinned, repent of it, and the blood of Christ 
will cleanse you. But do not falsify your mother's 
vow and bring a double curse upon your own head !" 
She shed tears too ! 

The eifect of that appeal to his early baptism 
cannot be effaced from his mind, '' while his being 
lasts." Nor is this a solitary case. If the argu- 
ment required it, thousands of similar cases could 
be produced. But it needs it not. Such facts may 
serve to encourage and comfort others, but they can- 
not be adduced as inspired authority to settle con- 



200 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

troversy. For that purpose we must appeal to the 
written Word of God, not to the '-'- tears" or " joys" 
or ^' indelible impressions" of Dippers, or anybody 
else, even '• reflecting men of the world." 



CHAPTEE XIX 



" INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT RETARDS THE DESIGNS 
OF CHRIST IN THE CONVERSION OF THE WORLD." 



AftePc an excellent exhortation concerning the 
conversion of the world, Dr. H. suddenly breaks off 
as follows : '^ She [the church] is quarrelling about 
fictions ! She has abandoned the nations to perish 
in their sins I Infant baptism, like the touch of a 
torpedo, has benumbed all her powers." 

As Dr. H. admits no one to be in the church but 
those who are dipped ; and as he declares that the 
conversion of Pedo-baptists, as well as the rest of 
the benighted, belongs to the Dippers, we suppose 
that he means to say, that they are '' quarrelling 
about fictions." This is a wonderful concession ; but 
it is no less true. They have so caricatured the 
views of others as to turn the whole into mere 
'•fiction;" and they are ''quarrelling" about that in- 
stead of laboring for the conversion of the world ! 
But how has infant baptism benumbed them ? The 
heathen do not practice it. Why do they not go to 



202 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

work on them instead of standing here in a quarrel 
with us about our duty to Grod and our children. 
They quarrel not much like men that are " benumb- 
ed." They more resemble the spiteful, meddling 
people, who wish to compel all others to do as they 
please. 

The Pedo-baptists have long been zealously en- 
gaged in efforts to enlighten and convert the world; 
but the Dippers throw every obstacle in the way. 
At first they tried to persuade the people that 
all the monej^s collected for Bible Societies and 
Foreign Missions were employed in " speculation." 
When beaten back from that low slang, they said 
it was of no use, for the Lord would " convert the 
heathen in his own good way and time." When 
they were forced to acknowledge that NOW is 
his '-good time," and the agency of the chvrch is 
his '• good way," they then wanted a new Bible with 
dip in it. Baptize is too much like the original 
Greek word. It would lead the people away from 
their dearest dogma — immersion. They would pre- 
fer some Boman or Saxon word. This Bible word 
will never do for them. Still Pedo-baptists moved 
forward with the Bible in their hand. The Dippers 
became alarmed. They held a convention and delib- 
erated what must be done. 

A master spirit said they must denounce Pedo- 
baptists as sects ^ speaking all manner of diversities, 
and constituting Babylon^ and no part of God's her- 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 203 

itage on earth. Then tliey must call upon all to 
come and be immersed, on peril of eternal damnation, 
(fee. &c. He concluded by saying that the necessi- 
ties of the work before them required that they 
should have evangelists to go out and convert the 
people, then pastors to instruct them after they were 
converted ; and, finally, strong men to go before and 
pull down the walls of Babylon, To this counsel they 
agreed, and they went to work accordingly. Since 
that we have learned that the committee to pull 
down the lualls of Babylon^ for want of proper in- 
struction, are wasting all their strength against the 
eternal ramparts of New Jerusalem ! Truly, they 
are " quarrelling about fiction" ! Dr. H. seems to 
be on this committee. Well, stand there and quar- 
rel. We know what we have to do. 

Let us now proceed to the particular specifica- 
tions. 

'-'• Infant baptism retards the designs of Christ in 
the conversion of the world by placing Baptists 
[Dippers] and Pedo-baptists in conflict with each 
other." '^ In conflict" ! and is that the work of in- 
fant baptism % No, verily. Pedo-baptists are willing 
that Dippers should work with all their might for 
the conversion of the world. There is room enough 
and work enough for all. But the Dippers, not con- 
tent to labor for the conversion of the world, are 
mainly employed in efi'orts to proselyte other Chris- 
tians to the WATER. They would rather let the 



204 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

heathen go to hell than to heaven by means of a 
Bible with baptize in it. Thej must alter it to dip^ 
or the heathen must have no Bible. It is their ar- 
rogance which puts them '' in conflict" with others. 
They are infallible. The rest are in error, are 
^' irrational." 

" Infant baptism retards the designs of Christ in 
the conrersion of the world, by diverting from the 
work, the time, the talents, the learning and the 
money of the church." Yes, if the Dippers would 
yield their obstinate opposition, there would not be 
so many ministers needed at home, and of course 
more might be sent to the heathen. But they think 
everybod}^ ought to yield to their dictation ; and oth- 
ers, loving liberty too well to give it up, will hold 
on to their own convictions of duty. The Dippers, 
conceiting that they are infallible, take it hard that 
all the world do not yield to this. This keeps them 
in a fret, and much '' time, talent and money" are 
spent in " quarrelling about [the] fiction" of their 
right to the claim of infallibility. 

^' Infant baptism retards the designs of Christ in 
the conversion of the world, by giving the name of 
Christians to the abandoned and profligate merchants, 
and sailors, and soldiers, and others in foreign lands. 
They really are, for the most part, members of Pedo- 
baptist churcheSj into which they were received in 
infancy." 

Dr. H. must certainly know that the heathen are 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 205 

unacquainted with the disputes of Christendom about 
baptism. He must also know that all men who go 
from Christian lands are called Christians by the 
heathen without the slightest reference to baptism. 
He ought to know that when one who was baptized 
in infancy becomes openly immoral, he, by the fact, 
ceases to be even a visible member of the church, just 
as Esau when he sold his birthright. If he would 
put himself to the trouble of a little inquiry, he would 
find some of the most abandoned and abominable that 
ever disgraced the Christian name in heathendom^ 
were at the time cUpi^ed members of that church 
which claims to be the only exponent of Christianity 
on the earth ; and some of these atrocious sinners 
are now missionaries and ministers ! He may here 
have his own words back: "Religion must be set 
forth and practiced in a plain, candid, open, ingenu- 
ous, honest manner. If I fiud a man equivocating 
and double dealing with me on one subject, I suspect 
he may on another ; and if I detect him so acting in 
several circumstances, I withhold my confidence from 
him entirely." 

We conclude with another specimen of Dr. H.'s 
bare assertions. 

" Infant baptism has done more, directly and indi- 
rectly, than all other corruptions combined to over- 
throw truth, to turn men away from vital religion, 
to pollute Christianity, to enfeeble her power, and 
to keep back the hour of her final triumph. Infant 

18 



206 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

baptism is the most pernicious heresy that ever found 
its way into the church of Christ." 

Dogmatic dictation can be afforded much cheaper 
than vigorous argument, as everybody knows ; and 
those who cannot afford the latter, often abound in 
the former. The moral purity of Scotland alone 
will be a sufficient refutation of all such gasconade. 



CHAPTEE XX. 



Aftee, looking over this chapter with some care, 
we concluded that with a little emendation it will do 
pretty well, and we therefore transcribe it, indicating 
the correction of errors in the composition by italics. 
It is as follows : 

The evils resulting to the church from the arro- 
gant claims of Dippers to infallibility have now, in 
most of their forms, passed successively in — under ? — 
review. They have been considered calmly, dispas- 
sionately, but — and ? — faithfully, and as demanded by 
the ivritten truth of our Lord Jesus Christ. If I 
have "nothing extenuated," neither have I "set down 
aught in malice." Let them be here briefly recapit- 
ulated. 

The arrogance of the Dipjoers is an evil, because 
its practice — the practice of it ? — is unsupported by 
the Word of God, vjhich gives all judgment to the 
Son ; because its defence — the defence of it? — leads 
to most injurious perversions of Scripture ; because 



208 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

it engrafted Judaism upon the gospel of Christ, by 
leading Dippers to siqipose that tlieij are the only 
people of God y as did the bigoted Jeivs ; because it 
falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity, by i7t- 
ducing them to deny their liability to err like other 
men ; because it contradicts the great fundamental 
principle of justification by faith, and ascribes it to 
immersion ; because it is in direct conflict with the 
doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit in regenera- 
tion, ascribing the neiv birth toclipping ; because it 
despoils the church of those peculiar qualities which 
are essential to the church of Clirist, namely^ the 
embracing of all GocVs people in one brotherhood of 
universal Christian fellowship) ; because its practice 
— the practice of it? — perpetuates the superstition 
that originally produced it, namely^ the notion that 
a great deal of ivater is necessary to ivash away sin ; 
because it subverts the Scripture doctrine of infant 
salvation, by excluding them from the covenant of 
grace and the kingdom of God ; because it leads its 
advocates into rebellion against the authority of 
Christ, by excluding from His covenant and kingdom 
those whom he declares to be heirs of his salvation ; 
because of the connection it assumes with the moral 
and religious training of children, assuming that 
their liberty is to be consulted as to ivhat they are to 
be taught^ luhen they knoio not hoiv to choose^ and 
never can know till they are taught ; because it is 
the grand foundation on which rests the union of 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 209 

Church and State, — establishment of the Church by 
the State ?—for in all such establishments one jparty 
claims infallibility^ and excludes the rest ; because 
it leads to religious persecution, /br the ^jersecutor 
always assumes that he is infallibly right ; because 
it is contrary to the principles of civil and religious 
freedom, which can exist only where all have equal 
claims ; because it enfeebles the power of the church 
to combat error, ivhich can be effected loith the ivrit- 
ten Word of God alone ; because it injures the credit 
of religion with reflecting men of the world, ivho al- 
ways despise to see iveak viortals claiming infalli- 
bility ; because it is the great barrier to Christian 
union, assigning to decide itself luhat others must 
believe ; because it prevents the salutary impression 
which baptism was designed to make upon the minds, 
both of those who receive it and those who witness 
its administration, since it makes baptism to be'-'- no- 
thing but form ^'' destitute of all meaning and design^ 
for nothing else but to avoid the instructive method 
of Bible sprinkling ; and because it retards the de- 
signs of Christ in the conversion of the world, by 
struggling to keep the Bible from the people^ till it 
can by its ovm iifallibility put a Latin word in 
place of God^s original Greek. These mainly are 
the charges I prefer against this flagitious arro- 
gance of the Dippers^ and I believe that I have 
proved each one of them conclusively. If so, it is a 

18* 



210 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

great and unmitigated evil. It not only does no 
good, but it does evil, immense evil, and only evil. 

In closing this discussion, may I not, in the first 
place, address a few words to my dijp-ping brethren % 

Will you not here pause, and, with the Bible in 
your hand, prayerfully re-examine this whole subject ? 
You have, very probably, never, at any time, given 
it a careful investigation ; for the Bible condemns 
illiherality in the plainest terms. You found it in 
your church; and, very naturally, feeling a prejudice 
in favor of whatever she approves and observes, you 
received and adopted it. You have since practiced 
this exclusive spirit.^ under a sort of indefinite im- 
pression that, although you do not yourself compre- 
hend with any clearness how, yet it is defensible by 
the Word of God; since ive must separate from the 
worlds and all not dipiied are yet in the ivorld. 
This, I know, is the position occupied by thousands 
in your church. You do not design to depart from 
the gospel. Least of all, do you imagine that in 
this matter you are committing an injury in any 
way. The enormous evil it briogs upon you, upon 
your children, upon the church and upon the world, 
is a great fact to which your attention has not hith- 
erto been called. You have regarded it with favor ; 
because it is observed by your church ; because great 
men practice and defend it ; because it is a time- 
honored work to exclude Godh people., which has come 
down to you through a period of fifteen eenturies. 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 211 

or more; and you practice it^ because you have 
thought that if it does no good, it will do no harm, 
since they can covimune with God all alone. But 
great men and good men — as great and as good as 
any that have defended and practiced this sectarian 
arrogance — have also practiced and defended all the 
corruptions of popery. If, on this account, you re- 
ceive this exclusive spirit^ you are obliged, for the 
same reasons, to receive all the corruptions of popery, 
and that excludes God^s oivn people. That, too, is 
a time-honored institution, clothed with the sanction 
of more than twelve centuries. High position, great 
learning, venerableness, brawling ignorance^ never 
can give authority to anything which is in itself false 
and injurious. Ours is not the age, nor the country, 
nor is religion the theme, in which such arguments 
can be respected. Because our fathers were gov- 
erned by kings and emperors, who, as they were 
taught by good and great men, '^ ruled by divine 
right," shall we be monarchists? We choose in 
politics to exercise our own judgment, and we reject 
as baseless all these antiquated pretensions. Shall 
we be less wise in religion, and allow priests to dic- 
tate our faith ? Here, too, we will look not to men, 
but to God's Word ; not to" antiquity, but to divine, 
writteJi, revelation. Our appeal is " to the law and 
to the testimony." If we — they ? — speak not accord- 
ing to these — this Word? — it is because there is no 
light in us — them ? 



212 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

Does sectarian exclusiveness do no harm ? I per- 
suade m^^self that no one who reads these pages will 
ever again urge that fallacious plea. Every de- 
parture from truth must be an evil, and this is one 
of the most melancholy of them all. Will you not, 
my brother, ascertain for yourself its character, and, 
renouncing it, return cheerfully to the Word of 
God, and the communion of all His peopled It is 
'^ a perfect rule of faith and practice," a7id the love 
of God's people ^promotes the love of God Himself 
If you and all others do so, no more will be heard 
of the injurious and deprecated custom. Even now, 
in our country at least, it is losing its hold. Among 
all evangelical Christians it is rapidly waning. 
Multitudes of the best members in the immersing 
churches, of all sects, utterly refuse to beheld hack from 
communimi ivith all tlieir dear brethren. Will you 
not also abandon this bigotry ? In maintaining this, 
or any other error, you cannot possibly have any inter- 
est. Review prayerfully, and in the light of the 
divine Word, your opinions and practices in the 
promises. I am sure you must desire to know the 
truth, and to obey the truth; and it will be peculiar- 
ly delightful^ by holy baptism^ folio iving God^s ex- 
ample^ to receive your own dear offspring in your 
Saviourh name. It may cost you some labor, and, 
perchance, demand sacrifices at your hands. But 
will you shrink from it on these accounts ? Let the 
"love of Christ constrain " you in this work. Bear 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 213 

your cross ^ and mortify the flesh. Great loill he 
your reivard. Give up every erro?' promptly. And 
may God enlighten and guide you into the knowledge 
of His will, and into a humble, holy and ready 
obedience in all things. 

May I, in the second place, appeal to persons 
who, although liberal in principle, are yet members 
of immersing churches ? 

This class of persons is much more numerous than 
has generally been imagined. Many of them are not 
aware that they approximate our principles. They 
have derived all their knowledge of them through 
immersing churches ; and such have been the repre- 
sentations, that they suppose us to be almost any- 
thing else than what we really are. It has ever been 
our lot, as it is of all God^s people^ to be traduced,, 
and exhibited in false lights, by sectarian hypocrites 
and bigots. Even their ministers- — this is the most 
charitable construction — are strangely ignorant of 
us. Not a few, however, know that they do really 
hold our opinions. By all those who occupy the 
contradictory position now indicated, I would gladly 
be heard. 

"What apology have you for practicing in your re- 
ligion one set of principles, while you really believe 
another ? Do you tell me that it is more convenient 
for you to be a member of a7i immersing church, or 
that your family are members of such a church, and 
it is not desirable that you should separate from 



214 EVILS OF DK. HOWELL. 

tliem ? or that there is no liberal clmrcli near jour 
residence, or tbat there are some things among 
Pedo-haptisis that 3^ou do not like, or that our social 
relations are not congenial, or that 3-ou are not sec- 
tarian in 3-our feelings, and wish to evince your lib- 
erality by remaining tvith the exdtisionists ? One 
or other of these, or some like reason, for the aban- 
donment of your faith, is, alas, but too often heard ! 
Are any such sufficient to reconcile you to a relation 
which must result in serious injury to your groivth 
in grace^ since it violates your own principles and 
ideas in the perpetuation of the most disastrous 
evils? Can you continue to believe one thing, and 
to profess and practice another and opposite thing ? 
Such inconsistency speaks little for your Christian 
conscientiousness. You probably require baptism 
for yourself, having received a dipjnng in the iilace 
of it. You think every other believer, as a believer, 
ougiit to be baptized ; but you, at the same time, re- 
fuse your countenance to those whose liberal opin- 
ions and open comniunion agree with your own 
vieivs of duty to God^ and still you uphold those who 
maintain the contrary ! 

By your presence, your influence, and your money, 
you support what you do not believe, and are now 
convinced Christ does not authorize; and, by with- 
drawing them all from the True Baptists^ you oppose 
what you do believe, and are assured your Saviour 
has enjoined! Is this obedience? Consider^ my 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 215 

brother^ tchat you arc douig. You reiioiiuce c/ose 
communion^ and you at the same time vigorously 
uphold it ! You believe it is wrong and a sin, aud 
you in the meantime do all you can to fasten the 
evil upon the church and the world. '- Come out of 
her J my people^ that ye be not partakers of her s'lnsP 
She clavns to be the only true churchy yet shuts out 
God's people. S/ie has held conmiunion with those 
tcho burnt the New Testament^ because they ice re 
immersed; but she excludes the best sai?it icithout 
it. In ha' communion.^ inunersion holds a higher 
place tha?t the greatest virtues. She denies that Chd 
is the God of the infa?it in tlve sauie sense that he is 
tlie God of its believing parent. She shuts the in- 
nocent babe out of the kingdom of God and the cov- 
enant of his grace. She claims autJiority to alter 
tJie original baptize into the Latin immerse. These 
are great sins. You can?iot co?isent to be a partaker 
of them with her. Then come out promptly, 

AYhen remonstrance is ofiered on this subject, you 
should not reply that it is inconvenient for you to 
separate from your family and friends — that you do 
not like Pedo baptists^ who, in the wide range of their 
liberality, love you. If you are no sectarian, you 
should separate yourself at once. Can you suppose 
yourself thus justified in departing from what you 
believe the law of Christ 1 I appeal to your judg- 
ment and vour heart. I ask you afi:ectionatelv, but 
candidly, whether you can reconcile it with your duty 



216 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

and consistency longer to continue in your present 
contradictory position ? How can you be bappy or 
useful as a Christian, thus daily sacrificing truth and 
conscience to mere worldly considerations ? Do you 
ask what you must do ? I answer, be true to Jesus 
Christ. Be honest with yourself and others. Will 
this require you to change your church relations ? 
And what then ? You may feel that it will be a 
painful sacrifice. It may be even difficult. Pride 
will oppose it. You will be appalled by the odium 
it will bring upon you. The love you bear to those 
with whom you are now associated, and who will 
frown upon you, will plead against it. How can you 
surmount these barriers ? Nothing but the firmest 
purpose, sustained by the grace of God, can carry 
you forward. On the other hand, however, you have 
the most animating encouragements. Christ, who 
died to save you, demands your fidelity. Truth 
claims your love and obedience. The honor and ad- 
vancement of religion call you to act, and to act 
promptly, vigorously and effectually. The cause of 
Christ protests against your present course, and 
claims your protection. These are sufficient. Leave 
the ivater and come to Christ, Leave sectarianism 
and come to generous love, Christ and his love 
will bear you on triumphantly. Do not, I entreat 
you, refuse to consider this subject. Dare to be 
consistent. Dare to honor and obey, as well as love 
our Lord Jesus Christ. Remember that indisput- 



EVILS OP DR. HOWELL. 217 

oJble truths TJiere is not one single infant in hell^ nor 
in tJie immersion church — not one ! But in heaven^ 
and all the Pedo-baptist chitrclus^ the dear little 
innocents have a place. Come ! you loish^ I know^ 
to have your precious hahes with you in the king- 
dom. Leave the Dippers to-day. 

And now, my beloved Fedo-baptist brethren, what, 
in conclusion, shall I say to you? We are one in 
aim^ love and com?iiunion. During many a weary 
century has our reuerated church struggled onward 
against every opposition. She has been denounced 
and proscribed by every despotism, national and 
ecclesiastical, /rom the corrupt p^opes to the fanatical 
Dippers. All the powers of earth have been per- 
petually combined, and have exerted their utmost 
energies, for more than eighteen hundred years^ to 
destroy her ; but still there she sta7ids^ ivith Jier hi- 
fants in her arms — a pilgrim yet ! He)- Jiarne is in 
heaven. She^ with Jier scorned babes^ ivill reach it 
safely. God has been, and still will be^ our "refuge 
and strength, a very present help in trouble." The 
gates of hell have not prevailed^ and never shall^ 
against tJie church. That little band has become a 
great army. " The days of our mourning are [al- 
most] ended." The time of triumph draws nigh. 
Your advanced position, your disciplined array, your 
growing power and resources, furnish sufficient in- 
dications that God is about to introduce, throufyh 
your instrumentality, that general return to primi- 

19 



218 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 

tive order, wliicli is to herald the conversion of the 
nations, ivhen^ according to his Word, God " will 
sprinkle clean water upon you " and your little 
ones. This work is to be done, and it must be, for 
the most part, done by you; since it never can. be 
accomplished by those who adhere to immersion. 
How can they hope to demolish popery, when they 
strive to perpetuate in their own organizations the 
very keystone of its strength, i^amely, exclusiveness 
and human infallibility ? 

The spirit of arrogance was the chief instrument 
that brought it into being, and if continued, will 
certainly build it up again, the same in s\^bstance, if 
not in name. Who can reasonably look for ultimate 
triumph in a conflict with infidelity, by tho&o who 
cherish among themselves a spirit of exclusiveness 
the very reverse of that comprehensive charity which 
is the distinguishing feature of the Gospel ? This 
is but the labor of Sisyphus repeated. The stone of 
victory, rolled almost to the mountain-top, will re- 
bound, and fall back into the abyss of narrow sec- 
tarianism. Such efforts, to be successful, must 
begin at the foundation. The axe must be laid, and 
used too, at the root of sectarian pride. Human 
infallibility, that old upas-tree— which, with its 
death-distilling branches, ungodly church-member- 
ship, blood-shedding religions, popery, every species 
of exclusive dogmatism, and scepticism, has for 



EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 219 

fourteen centuries, and more^ shaded and blasted 
the world — must come down, before the pure light of 
heaven and the sweet breath of life can circulate 
freely over the expanse of darkened and diseased 
humanity. You must not only enlighten and guide 
the heathen and Mohammedan nations to Christ, but 
you must purify Christendom, papal and dip-ping ; 
nor will you find the latter achievement less difficult 
than the former. How exalted is the mission 
assigned you from on high ! How gloriously it is tc 
effect the destinies of the world ! Yours is a loftier 
aim than mere patriotism and philanthropy. You 
seek the temporal good of nations, and of the whole 
race. But you stop not here. You labor for the 
eternal salvation of men. It is yours to carry the 
news of everlasting life to all the perishing ; to fur- 
ish every family on the face of the earth with the 
Word of God in its own language, and not in the 
language of Dippers; to send to every neighbor- 
hood a preacher of the gospel ; and, to erect there a 
temple in which the children of men shall learn the 
anthems of the blessed above, and become meet to 
join the General Assembly and Church of the 'First 
Born, whose names are written in heaven. Do you 
properly appreciate your obligations ? Up, then, 
and to your high and holy calling. God himself is 
with you. He will be your strength. He will honor 
your works of faith and labor of love with triumph- 



220 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 

ant success. Dippers shall abandon immersion^ 
give up their stringent sectarianism^ receive the babes 
in tJie name of the Lord ; and earthy redeemed from 
bigotry and idolatry^ sliall be filled ivith love^ and 
the communion of saints shall be tmiversal. Ameti, 



THE END, 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



"THE TRUE BAPTIST, 



It is proposed to re-publish, in a neat octavo Yolume, the 
Discussions on the Baptismal Question, as contained in the 
various numbers of " The True Baptist," a periodical edited 
and published at Jackson, Miss., bj the Rev. A Newtox, D.D. 
So eminently successful has Dr, JN^ewton been in commending 
his views to those interested in the various points associated 
vi^ith the discussion of this question, in Christian doctrine and 
polity, that pressing calls have been made upon him from 
many quarters for their re-issue, in a more permanent form. 

It has been determined, in response to their calls, to re- 
publish his Discussions in a form becoming their importance, 
and at a price that will encourage the wide circulation of the 
volume. The time of publication will be somewhat regulated 
by the promptitude with which subscribers' names for the 
work are sent in, and the number called for. It is expected 
that many will be taken in lots, for gratuitous circulation. 
An admirable opportunity is here presented for engaging in a 
remunerating business, in obtaining subscribers for this forth- 
coming work. Applications to be made to Dr. IS'ewton, at 
Jackson, Miss., or the publisher, W. M. Dodd, New York. 



2 



The following opinions, embracing but a portion of the com- 
mendations given of this work, by the Press of the country 
yarious Ecclesiastical Bodies and distinguished individuals, 
will show the estimate put upon it by those familiar with 
its character. 



OPINIONS OF THE PPvESS. 

Fro^n the Presbyterian Herald^ Louisville^ Ky, 

The editor [of the True Baptist] handles the subject of Bap- 
tism and its cognates with more ability and adaptedness to the 
assumptions of modern immersionists, than any writer with 
whom we are familiar. All who desire to make themselves 
familiar with this controversy — and it is one which the arro- 
gant assumptions of the opposite party will force all, sooner or 
later, to examine — would do well to avail themselves of its 
jBssistance. 



From the Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, 

Dr. Newton is an able writer, and the number now before 
us shows much ability and research. We hope it will have a 
wide circulation. 



From the Banner of Peace, Nashville^ Tenn» 

We welcome the True Baptist with a hearty good will, 
wishing it the most successful and useful career — which may 
be predicted with great confidence by all who know the 
ability of its learned, pious, and indefatigable editor and pub- 
lisher. 



From the Southern Christian Advocate, Charleston, 

We recommend heartily the circulation of the True Baptist 
wherever the Baptismal controversy has attracted attention. 



The style of discussion which it adopts, and the sterling ability 
and research which characterize its articles, particularly as to 
the new version of the English Bible, will recommend it to all 
who wish to keep up with the current history of the times. 



From the Christian Observer^ Philadelphia, 

"We would esteem it a good work to promote its circulation 
in every part of our tountry. 



From the Presbyterian Witness, Knoxville^ Tennessee. 

There is a great deal of ability in the True Baptist. It 
shows thought, and research, and candor, and courtesy * * * 
It is filled with " thoughts that breathe and words that burn" 
— burn, because they are true words, uttered in an elevated, 
courteous. Christian temper. * ^ * * Its spirit is so differ- 
ent from that manifested by the opposition, that it must com- 
mend itself to unprejudiced, liberal-mmded Christians every- 
where. 



Fro7n the Texas Presbyterian, 
We have no hesitation in pronouncing this to be the best 
work of the kind published. We would be glad to learn of 
its extensive circulation in Texas. 



From the Richmond Christian Advocate. 
We have several times noticed this really valuable publica- 
tion. Its discussions are more thorough and searching than 
any that have ever fallen under our notice. The great masters 
of the immersional theory are subjected to tests of Scripture 
argument, learned criticism, and logical exposition of the 
falsity and fallacy of their own principles that leave them 
high and dry on texts in which they supposed they had 
" much water," or water enough to float whole navies for the 
defence and support of their system. To express half the plea- 
sure we derive from the perusal of its convincing arguments 
against the doctrines of the Baptist Church, on the mode and 
subjects of baptism, would seem to be a fulsome panegyric. 
* * * * We heartily commend this monthly to all who 
desire a thorough work on the baptismal controversy. 



From the Ladies' Fearl, Nashville, , 

The editor gives unmistakable eyidence of being an efficient 
and experienced writer. It is devoted exclusively to the sub- 
ject of baptism, and will, we have no doubt, give the advo- 
cates of immersion, as the only mode, not a little trouble. It 
should be taken by every minister and member of the church 
who wishes to be thoroughly informed on this subject, whether 
Baptist or Pedo-Baptist 

From the Eastern Clarion, Paulding , Miss. 
True Baptist. — It is published monthly in the city of Jack- 
son, and is edited by the Rev. A. IS^ewton, a classical scholar, 
and a gentleman of fine scholastic attainments and general 
literary accomplishments. Not being theologians, and having 
nothing to do with religious controversy upon doctrinal points, 
we will not pretend to an expression of opinion upon the con- 
troversial merits of the True Baptist. All who would thorough- 
ly investigate the question of Baptism should subscribe to Dr. 
Newton's work. 

From the Bronson Republican, April 20, 1824. 
The True Baptist.— We have had laid upon our table the 
first volume of this work neatly bound in cloth. The reputa- 
tion of the author. Rev. Mr. Newton, as a ripe and finished 
scholar, a profound theologian, and a sincere Christian, gives 
assurance that his writings will be read with profit and plea- 
sure by these who may wish to acquaint themselves with all 
the arguments, for and against Immersion. 

Fro7n the Brandon Republican, . 
It can be safely recommended to friends and foes— to the 
former, because it embraces doctrines in accordance with their 
perception and well-adapted to strengthen their principles, 
and to the latter, because it is an open exponent of principles 
and can be accredited as a standard work. 



From the St. Louis Presbyterian. 
The True Baptist we have received in exchange from the 
time of its beginning, up to the present ; and we have all along 
been led to admire the ability and learning displayed in con- 



ducting the controversy. We do not see how our Baptist 
brethren can withstand such a battery, so well manned. 

Dr. JSTewton, by this publication, is rendering an important 
service to the cause of truth, and deserves to be well sustained. 
We think the extensive circulation of this publication would 
accomplish a good work, and we therefore recommend our 
readers who are interested in the baptism controversy to sub- 
scribe for the "True Baptist," as one of the best means of in- 
forming themselves on the subject. 



From the Grenada Republican, 

True Baptist. — The ability with which it is conducted 
should cause it to be sought after and read by all interested 
in a thorough knowledge of the subject of baptism. Even 
those who differ with the views entertained by Dr. K should 
read it, in order that they may see the strong points against 
them made by a masterly mind. To those who agree with 
the Doctor in opinions, this periodical must be most acceptable 
and invaluable, on account of its thorough research and un- 
surpassed ability. 



From the Lexington Advertiser. 

The True Baptist, published at the City of Jackson, under 
the supervision of the Rev. A. IS'ewton, strays occasionally 
into our office. It is a chaste, erudite, and graphic perio- 
eical, fi:illy sustaining the high reputation of its talended 
editor, of whom it may be emphatically said, " non tetigit 
quod non ornavit." 



From the Cumberland Presbyterian, St. Louis. 

The True Baptist. — ^This esteemed periodical, published by 
Rev. A. IS'ewton, Jackson, Miss., is the most thorough investi- 
gator of the doctrine of Christian baptism, that we have ever 
read. The last three numbers, in one, are before us. Published 
monthly at $1 50 per year. 



opiniojs^s of ecclesiastical bodies. -^ 

The Synod of Mississippi (N. S.), at their session held in 
October, at Grenada, adopted resolutions in which they 
*' earnestly commend the True Baptist to the attention and 
patronage of all liberal-minded and truth seeking people, as a 
work, whose style of discussion is chaste and dignified, con- 
ducted in a spirit of conciliation and brotherly love, and better 
calculated than any other, to present the truth at this period 
in the history of the church." 



The Synod of Mississippi (0. S.), Resolved, That this Synod 
do most cordially approve a periodical entitled " The True 
Baptist," published by Rev. A. Newton, D.D., in the city of 
Jackson, as an able exponent of the proper mode and subjects 
of baptism ; and recommend the same to the patronage of the 
members of the churches under our care, and to the public, as 
well adapted for the dissemination of sound and scriptural 
views of that subject. 



Mississippi Annual Conference. — Resolved, That we cordially 
recommend to the members of. our church "The True Baptist," 
published by Dr. jS'ewton, of Jackson, Miss., as a work emi- 
nently calculated to assist in arriving at satisfactory conclusions 
on the mode and design of baptism, and subjects connected 
therewith. 



Union Presbytery of C. P. Church. (Miss.) 
Whereas the Rev. A. Newton, of Jackson, Miss., is publish- 
ing a work, entitled " The True Baptist," devoted to the dis- 
cussion of the subjects, design, and mode of Baptism, therefore, 

Resolved^ That we recommend it to the public as a work 
calculated to concentrate the light to a focus on those subjects, 
and as a valuable addition to a family library. 



COMMEXDATIOIN'S FROM EMINENT CLERGYMEN, 
AKD OTHERS. 

Extract of a letter from Rev. C. Th. Marshall, of Yicks- 
burg, Miss. 

As the Editor has signally fulfilled his promises respecting 
its freedom from the too common spirit of sectarian violence 
and the villanons slang in which both parties have so often 
disgraced the columns of Christian journals, he has demon- 
strated the practicability of discussing this remarkable question 
•with the candour, calmness, courtes}^, and forbearance of a 
Christian gentleman. 

The "2Vwe Baptist^'* should be read by everybody that 
feels the slightest interest in the merits of the subject of its 
investigations. I am sure an abler or more satisfactory source 
of information cannot easily be obtained. And no candid and 
well informed opponent can deny the marked ability, judicious 
spirit, and sound learning which characterize its pages. I 
hope our Methodist friends will give it a careful reading as 
well as thousands of Baptists, among whom are a multitude 
of enlightened and eminent Christians, who, though their views 
cannot be changed on the subject of immersion, may see in 
its pages many reasons for a charitable judgment of those 
who from the most sacred convictions are compelled to reject 
that method of baptism. 



Extract of a letter from Rev. J. H. C. Leach, D.D., of Farm- 
ville, Ya. April 7th, 1854. 

I consider the True Baptist decidedly the best work on 
the subject of Chr. Baptism that I have ever read. It pre- 
sents the subject in all its relations, and especially in its 
controverted points, with clearness, precision, and candor; 
and in my judgment leaves nothing for further argument or 
controversy. 



8 

From John A. Brown, Esq., Philadelphia. 

Philadelphia, 9th September, 1854. 
Dear Sir, 

I have read this work with care and pleasure, and 
consider it a most able and satisfactory exposition of the 
proper mode and subjects of Baptism, and hope that the re- 
publication of it may meet with the success which it deservedly 
merits. 

Your obedient, humble servant, 

JOHN A. BROWK 
M. W. DoDDj Few York. 



Lynchburg, August 22, 1854. 
Dear Sir, 

With much pleasure I learned a few days 
since, that you were about to republish from the "True 
Baptist" Dr. A. Newton's discussions on the " Mode and Sub- 
jects of Baptism." It will, in my opinion, be, " The Book for 
the Times,'' on the subject of which it treats; being a most 
candid and thorough discussion of the points at issue ; racy, 
dignified, and eminently perspicuous in style ; and in argu- 
ment, so logically powerful, as, in my judgment, to be anni- 
hilating. 

With true Christian chivalry, the writer faces his opponents, 
— ^they are such men as, A. Campbell, Carson, Cox, Howell, 
Judson, &c., (fee. ; and with the sword of truth turns their own 
weapons upon themselves, and makes them by turns contra- 
dict and confute themselves and one another. Such a work 
ought to be in the hands of every Christian ; and it will in vaj 
opinion obtain a circulation, in extent unprecedented, when- 
ever the Christian community comes to know its merits. 

I have no doubt that thousands of copies will be sold in 
Virginia. 

I am with much respect, 

Yours, (fee, 

J. D. MITCHELL, 
Pastor of 2nd Presb. Ch., Lynchburg, Va 



9* 

From Rev. Dr. Potts, of New York. 
M. W. DoDD, Esq. 

Dear Sir, 
I am nmeh pleasured with the acuteness, originality, honesty, 
and force of this book. In all essential points, it fully accords 
with my own views of the truth on the subject of which it 
treats. 

GEO. POTTS. 



The following unsolicited commendation has been very 
kindly furnished by the Rev. Messrs. Campbell, Scott, and 
iN'orth, of Is"ew Orleans : 

The undersigned is a subscriber to the True Baptist, pub- 
lished by the Rev. A. IS^ewton, D.D., of Jackson, Miss., and has 
received its monthly numbers regularly since its commence- 
ment ; and, so far as the work has progressed he can confi- 
dently and cheerfully recommend it as an ahlc and, on some 
points, a very original discussion of the subject on which it 
treats ; and from the acknowledged, piety and talents of the 
learned editor, and from his having made it a prominent 
study for a series of years, and, in the meantime, his having 
discussed it triumphantly before crowded audiences, he enter- 
tains no doubt that the corrclusion will equal the commence- 
ment, and the whole constitute a work that will be read as 
long as the BajDtish controversy shall continue to be agitated 
in the Church. 

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. 



In the above views of Rev. Dr. Campbellj I, as a subscriber 
to Dr. JSTewton's work, cordially concur. 

W. A. SCOTT. 



Knowing, from a long personal acquaintance with Dr. ]^ew- 
ton, the kindness and candor of his nature ; and having been 
also a subscriber to his work from the beginning, I cheerfully 
concur with the foregoing gentlemen in their recommendation. 

I^ATHANIEL G. NORTH. 



10 

From the Rev. Dr. Drake, of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
Natchez, Miss. 

Natchez^ Miss., September 21, 1854. 

W. M. DODD. 

Dear Sir, 

I can with hearty good will recommend its 
publication. 

Yours respectfully, 

B. M. DRAKE. 



Sir, — Understanding that you are about to publish Vol. L, 
of the "True Baptist," a work of rare merit by my friend, the 
Rev. Dr. ISTewton, I would hereby, with many others of my 
brethren in the ministry, express my high gratification at the 
prospect of its publication. 

Such a work, from its clear and forcible expositions of divine 
truth, must commend itself to all whose minds are free from 
sectarian prejudice, and open to the teachings of that truths 
concerning the mode of Christian baptism. 

JOHN F. EDGAR, 
Pastor 1st Pres. Ch. 

Nashville, Tenn., Nov. 22, 1854. 



M. W. DoDB, Esq. 
My dear Sir, — I am gratified to learn that you propose the 
publication of a re-arrangement of the matter of Vol. I. of 
*' The True Baptist," by Dr. Newton of Mississippi. 

I have had occasion to read some of the articles in this first 
volume, touching the mode and subjects of baptism, and have 
been struck with the thoroughness of the discussion and with 
the cumulative evidence against immersion. I commend it 
heartily to all pastors and students of theology, and am per- 
suaded that it needs no more than an introduction to their 
notice to ensure its extensive circulation. 

I am very truly yours, 

T. J. SHEPHERD, 
Pastor of the Button wood-street Presb. Ch. 

Philadelphia^ 5th September, 1854. 



11 

From Rev. Be. Boyd, Winchester, Va> 
My dear Sir, — I am gratified to learn that you propose to 
publish another edition of the YoL I. of " The True Baptist," 
edited by Dr. Xewton of Mississippi. In my judgment it is a 
Avork eminently deserving general circulation. The discussion 
of the design, subjects, and mode of baptism is clear, thorough, 
and comprehensive. It is conducted throughout in a spirit of 
candour and Christian kindness, characteristic of those who are 
confident that they are defending the truth, and not error. I 
shall be glad to see the book issued in a style corresponding 
with its merits, and to know that it has an extensive sale. I 
am persuaded that it will become a standard work on the 
subject of which it treats. 

Yours respectfullv, 

A. M. M. BOYD. 
Whichester^ August 17, 1854. 



The Rev. Alex. Kewton, D.D., of Jackson, Miss., has done 
good service to the cause of truth, and especially to those 
branches of the church who practise Infant Baptism, by the 
publication of the "True Baptist." I have been highly grati- 
fied in the perusal of several ITos. of this able work, and re- 
gard it as one of the best popular indications of our views 
on this subject against the assaults of Baptist writers and 
preachers ; and as eminently fitted to do good in every part of 
our land. I should be very happy to see it issued in a per- 
manent form, and widely circulated. 

EDWIN F. HATFIELD, 
Pastor of the Seventh Presb. Ch. 

New Yorky August 18, 1854. 

From Prof. H. B. Smith, Esq., 
New York Union Theological Seminary. 
Dear Sir, — I have examined considerable portions of the 
work, and the arguments seem to be conducted with learning 
and acuteness. It is particularly full upon the scriptural 
question. ISTew points of view are presented and enforced with 
ability. I should think that it was worthy of republication 
and of more extensive circulation. 

Respectfully yours, 

HENRY B. SMITH. 
New Yorkf September 18, 1854. 



7 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 ^ Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





014 670 283 1 



i 



in 



